AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Kumar, J.—This order shall dispose of R.F.A. No. 1133 of 1984 filed by the State of Haryana and Cross Objections No. 105C of 1984 filed by the claimantrespondent.
The land of the claimantrespondent measuring 3 kanals 5 marlas situated at Shahbad was acquired. A notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevitiy, `the Act'') expressing the intention to acquire the land was issued on 24.1.1977. The Land Acquisition Collector (Directorate of Agriculture, Haryana, Chandigarh) vide its award dated 20.1.1978 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 9,760/ per acre. The respondentlandowner filed objections under section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Judge for determination of the market value of the acquired land and claimed that market value cannot be less than Rs. 10,000/ per kanal. The District Judge after referring to various sale instances came to the conclusion that only one sale instance Ex.P7 dated 15.12.1972 would be relevant because there the total land sold was 2 bighas 7 biswas for Rs. 14,206.58 which was the sale deed executed by the claimantrespondent/cross objector in favour of Warehousing Corporation for the construction of Warehouse. Accordingly, the District Judge ordered that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 50,000/ per acre. The view of the learned District Judge reads as under :
"In view of my discussion above, I am of the opinion that the only piece of evidence, which can be made the basis, for determining the market value of the acquired land, would be the sale deed, copy Ex.P.7 dated 15.12.1972, in favour of Haryana Warehousing Corporation, for the purpose of Warehouse and the average price would come at Rs. 29,000/ per acre. However, taking into consideration that the said sale took place on 15.12.1982 i.e. about four years and two months prior to the acquisition in the present case, I am of the opinion, that taking into consideration the rising trend in the prices and taking into consideration that the land was within the Municipal limits, I am of the opinion that the market value of the acquired land can be assessed at Rs. 50,000/ per acre."
Ms. Rajni Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellantState has argued that exorbitant increase has been awarded by the learned District Judge without there being any basis. According to the learned counsel, even Ex.P7 did not show that the land sold on 15.12.1972 was for more than Rs. 29,000/ per acre. Even the increase on the basis of rising trend in the prices is on the higher side, as maximum 10 per cent per year could be the yardstick applied.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the claimantrespondent/crossobjector has argued that there are eight sale instances which have been placed on record to show that the market value of the land was about Rs. 1 lac or more than Rs. 1 lac per acre. It has been claimed that the claimant respondent/cross objector was entitled to higher amount of compensation. It has further been claimed that no benefit of amendment provisions of the Act by granting enhanced compensation or solatium has been given. In support of their submission, the learned counsel have placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933 : 1989(1) RRR 552 (SC) to argue that in all the cases where the determination of market value by the learned District Judge under Section 18 of the Act has been made after 30.4.1982, the claimants have been held entitled to the benefit of amended provisions.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Before the learned Additional District Judge, the detail documentary evidence has been produced on record by the claimantrespondent/cross objector and the appellant. It would be convenient to analyse the same with the help of following two tables :
TABLE `A''
Document
Date
Area
Price
Price per acre
Ex. P1
24.3.1975
1 Kanal
Rs. 10,000/
Rs. 80,000/
Ex. P2
13.6.1978
1K7M
Rs. 27,000/
Rs.1,48,140/
Ex. P3
7.8.1975
9 marlas
Rs. 6,250/
Rs. 1,11,111/
Ex. P4
28.9.1972
3 B5 B
Rs. 35,000/
Rs. 51,692.31
Ex. P5
13.12.1971
3 B8 B
Rs. 35,500/
Rs. 43,692.31
Ex. P6
30.1.1976
9 marlas
Rs. 6,000/
Rs10,6667.20
Ex. P7
15.12.1972
2 B7 B
Rs14206.58
Rs. 29,000/
Ex. P8
27.5.1972
51/2 Biswas
Rs. 7,000/
Rs. 93,000/
TABLE `B''
Document
Date
Area
Price
Price per acre
Ex.RW1
24.7.1975
46K13M
Rs.40,863/
Rs. 7,008/
Ex.RW2
1.7.1977
2K16M
Rs. 3,000/
Rs. 8571.43
Ex.RW3
29.3.1978
11K9B
Rs. 9,000/
Rs. 6,288/
Ex.RW4
5.9.1975
36K10B
Rs.21,672/
Rs.4,750.40
Ex.RW5
19.6.1978
9K6M
Rs. 5,000/
Rs.4,300.80
A perusal of table `A'' shows that most of the sale instances are prior to the period when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued i.e. prior to 21.2.1977. A reference to Exs. P4 and P5 shows that the land of the custodian was sold in open auction by the Central Government and the rate of the land per acre comes to Rs. 51,692/ and Rs. 43,692/. PW2 Sudarshan Kumar has deposed before the Additional District Judge about the land covered by Ex.P5 stating that he purchased the land in 1971 for Rs. 35,500/ and there is no crossexamination of this witness on the question of price of the land. This witness also deposed that the acquired land was within the municipal limits on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 21.2.1977 and in the crossexamination, the same statement has been reiterated. Similarly, Nand Lal claimantrespondent/crossobjector appeared as PW1 and has stated about the sale of land by him to Markand Oil Company vide Ex.P1 dated 24.3.1975. The price of the land works out to be Rs. 80,000/ per acre. The sale deed Ex.P3 could be ignored on the ground that it was in respect of a small piece of land. The evidence of the appellant as shown in table `B'' does not disclose the distance of the land from the acquired land nor any witness has been produced to substantiate the price. These are in fact copies of the mutation and Ex. R9 is the copy of Aks Shajra. These documents were simply tendered in evidence by RW1 Shri Pawan Kumar Patwari. Therefore, it is not safe to completely rely upon these mutations.
From the above, it is clear that by no stretch of imagination the market value of the land on 21.2.1977 could have been assessed less than Rs. 50,000/ per acre as has been done by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly granted the benefit of enhancing trend of prices by keeping in view the potential of the land which could have been used for residential as well as commercial purposes. It is well settled that land which has potential to be developed as commercial and residential area would fetch better market value than the land which does not have such a potential. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the learned Additional District Judge was incorrect in determining the market value of the land at Rs. 50,000/ per acre.
The claim of the claimantrespondent/crossobjector with regard to benefit of amended provisions is also meritorious because in Raghubir Singh''s case (supra) a Constitution Bench has taken the view that any determination of market value at the hands of the District Judge after the cut off date of 30.4.1982 would attract the benefit granted under the amended provisions. A perusal of paragraph 32 of the judgment brings forth the aforementioned position. Accordingly, the benefit of enhanced solatium is liable to be extended to all the proceedings which were pending on 30.4.1982.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The cross objectors are partially allowed. The prayer of claimantrespondent/crossobjector for payment of benefits arising out of the amended provisions is accepted. The respondents are directed to pay the claimantrespondent/crossobjector the benefit of enhanced compensation under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act and also pay the interest on the enhanced compensation. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.