High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ishwar & Anr v. State of Haryana - LPA-189-2001  RD-P&H 613 (7 February 2006)
Ishwar and another v. State of Haryana
Present: Shri Rajinder Goyal,Advocate and Shri Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for
Shri H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Shri Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent.
This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 20 Letters Patent Appeals. All the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated July 6,2000 passed by the learned Single judge. All the present appeals have been filed by the claimants,claiming further enhancement for their acquired land.
Vide notification dated August 18, 1986 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), land measuring 36.52 acres situated in the revenue estate of Bhiwani Lohar, Tehsil and District, Bhiwani, was sought to be acquired for the constructions of water works. Vide award dated December 4, 1986, the Land Acquisition Collector, classified the land into three categories. Nehri Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 2
land was assessed at the market rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre; Tibha land was assessed at the market rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre and the remaining Banjar Kadim, Gair Mumkin and Adi land was assessed at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre. Claimant-landowners were not satisfied. They claimed reference under section 18 of the Act. The matter was accordingly referred. During the proceedings before the learned reference Court, the parties led their evidence. Learned reference court assessed the entire acquired land uniformly and held that the claimants-landowners were entitled to market value of Rs. 58,000/- per acre for their acquired land.
Additionally, the landowners were also held entitled to the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act.
The claimant-landowners still remained dissatisfied. They approached this court through various first appeals. The learned Single Judge, on reconsideration of the material held that the claimant-landowners were entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs.30/- per square yard for their acquired land. The aforesaid market value would come to Rs.1,45,200/- per acre approximately.
The claimants have now approached this court through the present Letters Patent Appeals. They have claimed further enhancement.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 3
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
A perusal of the record shows that the claimants had relied upon sale deeds Exhibits P1, P2, and P5 to P8. Ex.P3 ( P/8 in the connected references ) another judgment in relation to the acquired land in village Biwani Lohar vide notification dated August 1,1986, was also produced on the record. Vide the aforesaid judgment Rs.35/- per square was assessed as compensation payable to the claimant-landowners. The respondents produced various documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. However, the learned Single Judge chose to rely upon the sale instance Ex.P1 only. Since Ex.P1 pertained to sale of a small piece of land reflecting the average rate of Rs.99.17 per square yard, a reduction of 70% was applied. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid reduced average price and also taking into consideration the award Ex.P8, the claimant-landowners were held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square yard.
It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the claimants were entitled to much higher compensation keeping in view, the sale instances Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. It has been argued that Ex.P1 reflected the market rate of Rs.100/- per square yard and,therefore, Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 4
the learned Single Judge was not justified in applying 70% deduction on the aforesaid valuation. Learned counsel has also relied upon the sale instance Ex.P3.
However, we find that the sale instance Ex.P1 pertains to only three kanals of land. Although the said sale instance reflected the price at the rate of Rs.100/- per square yard for the aforesaid land, but the price for such a small piece of land could not be taken to be reflecting the real market value of the acquired land. A reasonable cut was definitely required to be applied. As far as the sale instance Ex.P3 is concerned, the said sale instance itself could not reflect the market value of the acquired land, in any manner. The claimant-landowners had also relied upon an earlier award dated August 12,1989 whereby the land in village Bhiwani Lohar itself had been acquired through notification dated August 1,1986 for the constructions of Bhiwani-Hansi by-pass road. Vide the aforesaid award the claimants in that case had been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per square yard. However,as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge himself, the aforesaid award Ex.P8 is still a subject matter of appeals in this Court. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties have jointly informed us that the aforesaid appeals have not been finally Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 5
disposed of. It is,thus, clear that the aforesaid award Ex.P8 has not attained finality so far and,therefore, cannot be made basis of the assessment.
From a perusal of judgment of the learned Single Judge, we find that the claimants have also relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Shanti Devi etc. V. State of Haryana and others 1999(2) R.L.R.640 ( RFA No.947 of 1994 decided on February 18,1999. In Shanti Devi's case through a notification dated June 4,1986, land measuring 75.34 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Bhiwani Lohar itself has been acquired for the above purpose. The reference court in that case had assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 125/- per square yard. The claimants had filed appeals for further enhancement. The State had also come up in appeal for reduction of the said enhancement.
The matter was examined by this court in those appeals. Whereas the claimants' appeals were dismissed,the State's appeals were allowed and the payment of compensation was reduced to Rs.79.98 per square yard. The learned Single Juge after taking note of the aforesaid judgment in Shanti Devi's case (supra) has chosen not to rely upon the same only on the ground that the distance between the acquired land and Shanti Devi's case was not reflected vis-a-vis the present acquired land and further that in Shanti Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 6
Devi's case the land had been acquired for commercial and residential development of the sectors whereas the land in the present case had been acquired for the purpose of construction of water works. In our considered view the aforesaid distinction noticed by the leaned Single Judge cannot be used to deny the present claimants-landowners the market value which was assessed in Shanti Devi's case (Supra). It is not in dispute that the land in the aforesaid Shanti Devi's case was also acquired from the revenue estate of village Bhiwani Lohar. If the land in the same revenue estate had been acquired and nothing had been pointed out by the State as to how the aforesaid land in Shanti Devi's case was having any distinct advantageous or better location than the land acquired in the present proceedings, then it is not justified for the court to deny the same advantageous and the similar compensation to the present claimants-landowners.
It is well settled that when large tracts of land are acquired in the same revenue estate or in the revenue estate adjacent to each other, then all the claimant-landowners should be uniformly compensated for the acquisition of their property. Until and unless there is some material on record to show that a particular piece of acquired land was in a better advantageous position or better located, then the other acquired land, all the Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 7
landowners should be given the same treatment. From the material available on the record, we do not find that there is any such material brought on record by the State to show that the lands of the present landowners in the present appeals were situated at any advantageous position then the land acquired in Shanti Devi's case. Accordingly, we find that the claimant- landowners in the present appeals would also be entitled to the same market rate as in Shanti Devi's case i.e. Rs. 79.98 per square yard.( rounded to Rs.80/-)
As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present appeals and hold that the claimant-landowners would be entitled to the market rate of Rs.80/- per sq. yard as compensation for their acquired land.
Besides the aforesaid compensation, the claimants-landowners would also be entitled to the benefits of the statutory provisions of the amended Act.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( Viney Mittal )
August 17,2005 ( H.S. Bedi )
Letters Patent Appeal No. 189 of 2001 8
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.