The Hindustan Sanitary-Ware and Industries Ltd. (Formerly Hindustan Twyfords Ltd.) Bahadurgarh and another vs The State of Haryana and others

S.P. Goyal, J.—This judgment will dispose of 10 appeals L.P.A. Nos. 428 to 432 and 495 to 499 of 1981, which are directed against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge.

Challenge in all these appeals is directed against the assessment of the market value of the land acquired by the State of Haryana for the two public sector companies. The learned Single Judge enhanced the market price of the land acquired by the State of Haryana for the two public sector companies The learned Single Judge enhanced the market price of the land situate at village Bahadurgarh,comprising of Khasra No. 2367 and 2370 to Rs. 7/- upto a depth of 20 Karams and beyond that to Rs. 5/- per Square yard; whereas the market price of the land situate at Parnala was assessed at Rs. 2/- per square yard. Feeling dissatisfied thereby both the parties have come up in these appeals.

So far as the appeals filed by the two Companies are concerned, a preliminary objection was raised that no appeal was competent on behalf of the Companies. This matter stands concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in Santokh Kumar and others v. Central Warehousing Corporation and another A.T.R. 1986 S.C. 1164 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in Central Warehousing Corporation and another v. Sher Singh Anchal and others 1984 P.L.J. 468, against the said appellants. However, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that by virtue of a previous decision between the parties, reported in The The Hindustan Sanitary-ware and Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, the rights of the Companies to file appeal, has been upheld. The earlier decision even if it may be erroneous in law, operates are res-judicata between the parties and bars the resume of the same question once again. The contention is wholly misconcieved. In the earlier revision, the prayer for permission to lead evidence to the appellants in the reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was granted in recognition of their statutory right. Neither any question as to whether an appeal against the award was competent by the Companies was involved nor decided. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the land-owners is consequently upheld and the L.P.A. Nos. 428 to 432 of 981 are dismissed as not maintainable.

In the appeal filed by the land-owners relating to Khasra Nos. 2367 to 2370, situate at village Bahadurgarh, the only contention raised by their learned counsel was that the learned Single Judge was not justified in adopting a belting system and awarding compensation at two different rates for the land according to their depth from the National High way. We are, however, not impressed by this argument. A bare look at the site-plan would reveal that the construction activity was solely confined to the land adjoining the National Highway upto a depth of 30/40 feet Moreover, the land comprised of the said Khasra numbers was being used as a cremation ground prior to the present acquisition. Obviously, this land could not have any potential for being used as urban area, and as such it was difficult to uphold the market value assessed by the learned Single Judge, but as there is no appeal by the State we cannot interfere therewith. The contention raised, therefore, has to be overruled.

As regards the land situate at village Parnala, the learned counsel urged that the sale deeds, Exhibits P.W. 6/1 and P.W. 10/1 were ignored by the learned Single Judge without any justifiable reasons. The learned Single Judge declined to rely on the sale transaction evidenced by Ex. P.W. 10/1 on the ground that it has been made four months after the issuance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. The learned counsel relying on Raja Srivalgoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and Others, , urged that even the sale transaction of a deed later than the notification u/s 4 of the Act could be taken into consideration while filing the market value. The reliance put by the learned counsel on the decision in Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvara''s case (supra) is wholly misplaced. The Supreme Court had assessed the market price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square yard in the year 1946 and at the rate of 12/- per square yard for the land acquired in the year 1956. When the question of assessing the market value of similar land acquired during the years 1951 to 1954 arose, the same was assessed at Rs. 9/- per square yard, by taking the mean between the two prices assessed earlier. Obviously, on question of law decided nor the method adopted for assessing the market price has any bearing on the facts of the present appeals no doubt, there is no law which bars the taking into consideration of the sale transaction which takes place after the transaction, but as a rule of caution they have not been relied upon presumably having been made in view of the proposed acquisition. The learned counsel cannot, therefore, successfully contend that the learned Single Judge committed any error of law in not relying upon the sale transaction So far as the other sale transaction is concerned, it relates to the small plots which were situated just behind the Grain Market, the land, subject matter of these transactions, therefore, had a much better situation and as such could not furnish any guidance for the assessment of the market price of the land in dispute. The judgment of the learned Single Judge, therefore, suffers from no legal infirmity concerning the land situated at viltage Parnala which could be corrected in a letters patent appeal. However, in view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the land-owners are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% instead 15% and interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land for the first year and at the rate of 15% thereafter till its payment. The appeals filed by the land-owners are, therefore, allowed to this extent only. No. costs.