State of Haryana vs Pardeep Kumar

N.C. Jain, J.—By this judgment I would be disposing of R.F.A. No. 1340 to 1348 of 1985 filed by the State of Haryana, 965 of 1985 filed by the claimant and eight cross-objections bearing No. 34-CI of 1990 in R.F.A. No. 1341 of 1985, 141-CI of 1985, 2-CI 1986 in R.F.A. No. 1342 of 1085, 35-CI of 1990 in R.F.A. No. 1343 of 1985, 40-CI of 1990 in R.F.A. No. 1345 of 1985, 36-CI of 1990 in R.F.A. No. 1346 of 1985, 37-CI of 1990 in R.F.A. No. 1347 of 1985 and 38-CI of 1990 in R.F.A. No. 1348 of 1985, all filed by land-owners.

The Stale of Haryana in pursuance of notification dated 9th March, 1981, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), acquired 21.29 acres of land situated in village Gokalgarh, Hadbast No. 119, Tehsil Rewari, District Mahendergarh for the construction of 220 K.V. Sub Station Rewari. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 30th December, 1981, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 13.000/- (Rs. Thirteen Thousand) per acre. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the compensation sought references u/s 18 of the Act. The Additional District judge Narnaul by his impugned judgment dated 27.4.85 have evaluated the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 16/- (Rs. Sixteen) per sq. yard. The state of Haryana has come up in appeals for the reduction of compensation amount whereas the landowners feeling aggrieved against the award have sought enhancement.

Having heard the learned counsel for the State and the claimants and having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on the record of the case, I am of the view that neither any case for reduction nor enhancement has been made out for the reasons given in the latter part of the judgment.

The landowners examined PW. Chater Bhuj, Deed Writer, PW. 2 O.P. Sachdeva, Architect, Gurgaon, PW. 3 Bhagwat Singh a witness to the agreement of sale Exh. P1, PW.4 Ramesh Chander, Property Dealer, PW.5 Ramesh Kumar son of one of the claimants apart from tendering certain documents. The documents brought on the record of the case are Ex. P1 agreement dated 31.12.80, Ex. P.2, scaled site plan prepared on 16.2.85, Ex. P3 Special Power of Attorney executed by one of the claimants, Ex. P4 copy of masavi of village Gokalgarh, Ex.P5 copy of aks shajra killa bandi of Rewari, Ex.P6 copy of aks latha chakbandi of the land of Rewari, Ex. P.7 copy of registered sale deed dated 28.6.80, Ex. P8 copy of registered sale deed dated 4.2.82, Ex. P9 copy of registered sale deed dated 4.2.82 Ex. P10 copy of registered sale deed dated 19.4.1982 Ex. P11 copy of registered sale deed dated 10.12.1981, Ex.P12 copy of registered sale deed dated 19.4.1979, Ex.P.13 copy of registered sale deed dated 9.6.1979 Ex. P. 14 copy of registered sale deed dated 10.4.1980, Ex. P15 copy of registered sale deed dated 13.11.1980, Ex. P 16 copy of registered sale deed dated 21.8.80, Ex. P. 17 copy of registered sale deed dated 28.6.80, Ex.P.18, copy of registered sale deed dated 28.6.80, Ex.19 copy of registered sale deed dated 28.6.80, Ex. 20 site plan, Ex. P21 copy of Khasra girdawari, Ex. P22 copy of jamabandi, and Ex. P23 copy of jamabandi. The State of Haryana apart from producing R.W. 1 D.C. Sharma, S.D.O. (Civil Works), H.S.E.B. Rewari has also produced on the record certain mutations Exhibits R.1 to R.23.

Pw. 1 Chater Bhuj, Deed Writer, is the scribed of agreement of sale dated 31.12.1980 by which one kanal of land was agreed to be sold for Rs. 30,000/- by Than Singh, one of the Claimants to Bhagwat Singh.

PW.2 O.P. Sachdeva Architect claims to have inspected the acquired land in the first week of February, 1985. He has stated that he made necessary and relevant measurements on the spot of the acquired land and prepared the site plan Ex.P2. In cross-examination he stated that he did not know whether the land shown in Ex. P2 falls within the municipal limits of Rewari or not and that the same was within the revenue estate of Gokalgarh village. He could not even tell the distance between municipal limits and the acquired land. He further stated that he had shown the factual and existing position in Ex.P2 which was in existence in February 1985 and could not tell the factual position about the acquired land in the year 1981.

Bhagwat Singh PW.3, as has been seen above, in the statement of PW. l Chater Bhuj was the prospective vendee in the agreement of sale Ex. P.1

PW.4. Ramesh Chander claimed to be working as Property Dealer for the last nine years (his statement was recorded on 18.4.1985). He stated that he saw the acquired land four years back and that the land adjoining the acquired land was being sold at the rate of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per sq. yard at the time of acquisition. He further deposed that towards the East of the acquired land there was a power house, on the south of acquired land there was a road and houses and factories towards the South and East. He further stated that across the Kacha rasta there was I.T.I''s building. In cross-examination he was constrained to admit that no transaction of sale took place through him at the rate of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per sq. yard regarding the adjoining land of the acquired land. Bus Stand Rewari was described to be at a distance of 2 kilometers from the acquired land. He also deposed about the existence of Gatta and wire factories being situated in the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh. P.W. 5 - Ramesh Kumar - Mukhtiar - Khas son of Than Singh one of the landowners stated that though the land under acquisition was within the municipal limits of Rewari but the same was situated in the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh. He further stated that abadi of Rewari was spread over towards the acquired land. The acquired land was situated on Ihajjar Road, according to him. He further stated that Patodi road passed at a distance of 400/500 yards from the acquired land. The existence of houses and the shops adjoining the acquired land was also deposed to by this witness. He further stated that the market value of the acquired land was approximately Rs. 100/- per sq. yard abutting on the road side. Rear part of the land could be sold for Rs. 60/- per sq. yard. He also deposed about the agreement of sale. In cross-examination he was constrained to admit that the acquired land was purchased by his father in the year 1975 at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. He again stated that his father had purchased nine kanals of land for Rs. 25000/-. He further admitted that the acquired land was under cultivation and crops were being sown at the time of acquisition. He also admitted that towards the North of the acquired land there was Johar, Mandir and Dharamshala besides the houses. He further deposed that I.T.I. building was situated within the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh but it was within the municipal limits of Rewari. He again stated that I.T.I. Building falls within the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh and the Municipal limits of Rewari.

PW. 1 D.C. Sharma S.D.O. (Civil Works) Haryana State Electricity Board, Rewari for whose benefit the land was acquired stated that he had taken possession of the land on behalf of the H.S.E.B. and that the same was situated at Jhajjar - Rewari Road. He stated that the acquired land was surrounded by agriculture land and there was no house or factory near the acquired land. He categorically stated that the acquired land was not within the municipal limits of Rewari and that the distance between them was at least 1/2 kilometer. Abadi of village Gokalgarh was at a distance of 1-1/2 kilometer from the acquired land, according to him. Railway Station Rewari was described to be at a distance of 1 Kilometer from the acquired land whereas Bus Stand was stated to be at a distance of 4 kilometers. Similarly, new courts at Rewari were at a distance of 4.5, kilometers from the acquired land. Patodi road was stated to be at a distance of 4 kilometers. Similarly, new courts at Rewari were at a distance of 4.5, kilometers from the acquired land. Patodi road was stated to be at a distance of 1/2 kilometer from the acquired land. I.T.I. Rewari was situated at a distance of. 75 kilometer from the acquired land according to this witness. The rear portion of I.T.I. according to him, was nearer the acquired land. He stated that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs. 12/13 thousand per acre. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen the notification regarding the limits of Municipal Committee, Rewari. H.S.E.B. Colony was situated towards South of the acquired land and the same was stated to be not within the municipal limits of Rewari. He further stated that no house tax was assessed in respect of the building of the H.S.E.B. He further stated that the Municipal limits of Rewari extended upto Rewari - Patodi Road. He further deposed about the existence of Gatta and Wires Factories in his cross-examination. According to him prior to the acquisition there was only Rama Industries Building towards the West of the acquired land.

Both the counsel for the State and the landowners submitted that the Additional District Judge has arrived at the figure of Rs. 16/- per sq. yard without relying upon a particular sale deed and this approach, according to them, is untenable. The State Counsel has argued that the land is not within the Municipal limits and that Rewari was not a district at the time of acquisition and, therefore, compensation granted is on the higher side. It has further been argued that the land was agricultural in nature - and, therefore, compensation be reduced. On the other hand, the counsel for the landowners, while admitting that Rewari was not a District on the date of the acquisition, has argued that compensation as granted by the Additional District Judge is on the lower side as the land had high potentialities.

I have gone through the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge. There is no dispute that he has arrived at the figure of Rs. 16/- per sq. yard after referring to the entire evidence comprising of sale deeds which pertained to the period before the issuance of the notification and after the notification. It would have been better if he had relied upon one sale deed or the other. But on an examination of the entire evidence I have not been able to find any aberration in the finding on the point of compensation which has ultimately been so recorded. The Additional District Judge rightly discarded the agreement of sale Ex. P1 describing the same to be managed affairs to create evidence. Documents Exhibits Rs. l to R.12 are mutations, and, therefore, the same cannot be considered. Oral evidence brought on the record of the case does not prove that the acquired land was within the municipal limits of Rewari. No notification has been brought on the record of the case showing the municipal limits. No claimant has stepped into the witness box to state that at the time of notification the acquired land was within the municipal limits. This is also true that Rewari was not a District when the notification was issued. In view thereof it cannot be successfully maintained that the acquired land had very high potentialities but at the same time the State Counsel was unable to convince me that the land could not be evaluated at the rate of Rs. 16/- per sq. yard by holding that it was purely agricultural and having no potentialities whatsoever. It has come in the evidence, which has been discussed above, that the land was near Rewari although situated within the revenue limits of village Gokalgarh. Abadi of village Rewari was also close by and, therefore, it can safely be held that the acquired land had the potentialities of being suburban land. Even if this court was to rely upon the solitary sale deed Exh. P7 dated 28th June, 1980, evidencing the sale of 4 marlas of land in village Gokalgarh at the rate of Rs. 16/- per sq. yard, the finding of Rs. 16/- per sq. can be upheld on the short ground that the land in dispute was acquired nine months after the execution and registration of the sale deed Ex. P.7. The size of the area sold vide Exh. P7 would offset the time lag between the sale deed and the date of notification. At the same time as has been discussed above, the potentialities of acquired land which can neither be described to be very high nor very low would not warrant any enhancement in the amount of compensation, for the reasons recorded above. In nutshell, after applying all the speculations and guess work which is permissible in land acquisition cases, I am of the view that the grant of Rs. 16/- per sq. yard is just, fair and reasonable and the same is borne out from the evidence brought on the record whether one sale deed is taken into consideration in its isolation or cumulative - effect of all the sale deeds is kept in mind.

For the reasons recorded above, all the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and the cross-objections filed by the claimants are found to be devoid of any merit and are consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. The claimants would be entitled to all the statutory benefits given by the Additional District Judge.