Smt. Shakuntla Devi, etc. vs The State of Haryana

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.—Regular First Appeal No. 141 of 1970 presented by the land owner-claimants and the cross Appeal No. 259 of 1970 preferred by the State of Haryana raise identical issues of law and fact and are, therefore, being disposed of by this single judgment.

By a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated the 25th March, 1964, an area of more than. It bighas was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of Punjab Roadways Workshop and Bus stand in the township of Rewari. In the subsequent notification u/s 6 an area of 10 Bighas and odd, however, was taken possession of. In the proceedings, that followed, the Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated the 30th of September 1963 allowed compensation to the land-owners at a uniform rats of Rs. 8780/- per acre.

The landowners apparently dissatisfied with the aforesaid assessment of value preferred references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming substantial enhancement thereof. The claim was resisted on behalf of the State and on the pleadings of the parties as many as seven issues were struck by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, to which detailed reference is unnecessary as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the only and material one is issue No 2 with regard to the market value of the acquired land. By the judgment under appeal the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation awarded to a uniform rate of Rs. 12/- per- square yard As noticed, both the land-owners and the State of Haryana have come up by way of appeal

Mr. M.L. Sarin appearing for the appellant laid owners with his usual (sic) pointed his argument only with regard to Exhibit P 9 preved on the record by the appellants. This is a copy of the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, dated the 31st of January 1956, where by with regard to Khasra Nos. 1602 and 1603 situated at a distance of about two to three furlongs from the acquired land the (sic) was awarded at a rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard. Mr. Sarin highlighted the fact that in fact the acquisition covered by Exhibit P 9 was made as far back as 1952. On these premises the main thrust of the learned counsel''s argument was that in the present case where the acquisition has been made twelve years thereafter the prices must necessarily have gone up and it was submitted that judicial notice of this rise be taken and the compensation be suitably enhanced.

The argument, aforesaid in abstract might look attractive. Undoubtedly there are authoritative observations that in a particular case (sic) notice even may be taken of an uptrend in prices However, it is plain that this rule does not operate in a vacuum and cannot possibly be divorced from the actual evidence on the record. What is of particular significance in the present case is that far from there being any evidence indicating any rise in prices in the vicinity of the area of the town of Rewari, the appellant land-owners'' own evidence raises an irresistible inference of the prices having remained static and in face showing a down trend therein. It is significant to recall that the appellant landowners did not rest cannot whit the proving on the record of Exhibit P. 9 with regard to the earlier acquisition in 1952 On their own showing vide Exhibit P 4 Sanwal Ram Swami one of the claimants had purchased short Biswas out of Khasra No 1566 which has been acquired for Rs. 9150/- by the sale deed dated the 12th of October, 1962. Therefore a part of the acquired land itself was proved on the record to be worth Rs. 10% per square (sic) only about a year and a half prior to the present acquisition. This indeed would indicate that the prices for from rising continuously since 1952 had in fact come down substantially a decade thereafter. This transaction even though proved on behalf of the landowner is again not an isolated one Exhibit P. 1 which pertains to an instance of sale in 1959 worked out to an average price of Rs 9.50 only. This would again be indicative of a down-trend from the earlier assessment of value in 1952 at the rate of Rs 2/- per square vard. It deserves highlighting and perhaps repetition that both Exhibits P. 1 and P 3 were relied upon and pressed for acceptance on behalf of the land owner claimants is thus evident that far from establishing any consistent rise in prices from 1952 on wards the appellant-landowners have been at pains to establish that the prices had in any case remained static if not indeed slipped down in the close vicinity of the acquired land. The basis and the only argument on the point of valuation raised on behalf of the appellants, therefore, must fail.

Learned counsel for the landowners, however, are entitled to succeed on a minor and ancillary point. The learned Additional District Judge whilst awarding enhanced compensation allowed interest only at the rate of 4 percent from the date of the taking of possession of land by the Government. Counsel was on firm ground that with effect from 1st July, 1967 the statutory rate of interest had been raised to 6 per cent and in view of the Division Bench judgment in Gurdial Singh and others v. State of Punjab 1977 P.L.J. 391, the appellant landlords were clearly entitled to this rate of interest. This position has been very fairly conceded on behalf of the respondent State. Accordingly we direct that the appellant-landowners would be entitled to interest at the aforesaid rate of six per cent on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of the taking of possession of land by the Government The Regular First Appeal No 141 of 1970 is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Parties, however, will bear their own costs.

The State appeal seeking reduction in the compensation awarded has not been pressed before us and even otherwise in view of the discussion aforesaid there is no ground whatsoever for reducing the compensation awarded. The same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.