Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MITHLESH SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Mithlesh Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors - LPA-23-1994 [2006] RD-P&H 616 (7 February 2006)

L.P.A. No. 23 of 1994

Smt. Mithlesh Sharma V. State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate;

Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate;

Mr. M.S. Guglani, Advocate;

Mr.Gopi Chand,Advocate;

Mr.S.K.Goyal, Advocate;

Mr.S.D. Bansal,Advocate; and

Mr.Hari Om Sharma, Advocate;

For the appellants.

Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Additional Advocate General,Haryana, for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.

This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals as all the appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated July 28,1993 passed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeals have been filed by the claimant-appellants and the prayer made therein is for further enhancement of compensation for their acquired land.

Vide a notification dated April 21,1987, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), land measuring 173.34 acres, in village Tejli and Garhi Mundo, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar was acquired by the State Government. The said land was acquired for development and utilization of land as residential area of Urban Estate Jagadhri.

The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. The landowners were not satisfied and claimed references under section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the matter was duly referred for adjudication to the learned Additional District Judge.

Before the reference Court, the parties led their respective evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,12,000/- per acre. The claimants-landowners were also held entitled to the statutory benefits under the provisions of the Act.

The claimant-landowners still approached this court through various Regular First Appeals. A prayer for enhancement was made. The State of Haryana also filed appeals against the enhancement granted by the reference Court. All the appeals were heard together by the learned Single Judge and disposed of vide judgment July 28,1993.

The learned Single Judge while adjudicating the market value of the acquired land relied upon the sale instance Ex.P1 dated June 20,1993 whereby 24 bighas 10 biswas of land had been sold for a sale consideration of Rs.10,29,463/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2,01,690/- per acre. Since the notification for the acquisition in question was issued on April 21,1987, therefore, the claimants were held entitled to the necessary increase at the rate of 12% for a period of three years and 10 months over the aforesaid amount. Accordingly, they were held entitled to an amount of Rs.2,94,500/- per acre. Additionally, the claimants were held entitled to the grant of statutory benefits of the mandatory provisions of the Act.

The claimants have still remained dissatisfied. For further enhancement of the compensation, they approached this court through the present Letters Patent Appeals.

We have learned the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.

At the out set, certain observations made by the learned Single Judge may be noticed:

"After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is no aberration in the approach of the learned Additional District Judge in placing reliance upon Exhibit P1 vide which about five acres of land was sold in favour of one Amrit Lal Goyal, President of Bhagwan Mahabir Jain Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Yamuna Nagar bringing out the average sale price at Rs.2,01,690/- per acre. In my considered view, neither the sale deeds referred to by the State counsel nor the sale deed Exhibit P6 relied upon by the claimants' counsel would furnish reasonable guidelines to assess the market value of the acquired land. By virtue of Exhibit P6 a much smaller area has been sold as compared to the sale deed Exhibit P1 by virtue of which 24 Bighas 10 B iswas of land has been sold , a sale deed pertaining to the sale of much bigger area is available, there is no reason as to why the same should not be relied upon as compared to the sale deed pertaining to the sale of a much smaller area which comes to about 1/5th

of the land sold vide

Exhibit P1. In view thereof, I am of the view that the sale deed Ex.p6 cannot be relied upon.

Adverting to the sale deeds Exhibits R3 and R4, pertaining to the sale of 10 Bighas 12 Biswas and 21 Bighas 6 Biswas of land, the same cannot be relied upon. A perusal of the sale deed Exhibit R4 makes it clear that the land was under lease for a period of 60 years with one Bhagat Ram son of Ganeshi Ram, resident of Yamuna Nagar. Since the land was under lease, the same would naturally get much lesser price than the price prevalent in the market. Exhibit R4 is, therefore, not comparable with the acquired land. It has remained undisputed before me that vide Exhibit R3 a small portion of land measuring 10 Bights 12 Biswas out of the land sold vide Exhibit R4 was sold by the vendee. Once the land is the same which was the subject matter of Exhibit R4, Exhibit R3 can also be not relied upon for the same reason that the land sold was under lease for a period of 60 years. Therefore, both the sale deeds are irrelevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land.

The resultant effect of the above-mentioned discussion is that neither of the sale deeds barring Exhibit P1 is relevant for determining the market value of the acquired land.

As would be seen, above five acres of land was sold vide Exhibit P1 in favour of Amrit Lal Goyal, President of Bhagwan Mahabir Jain Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Yamuna Nagar. The perusal of the sale deed further makes it clear that the entire consideration except a sum of Rs.19,463/- was paid by way of three band drafts & in view thereof the learned Additional District Judge has rightly relied upon Exhibit P1 particularly when the acquired land had big potential value. It has come in evidence of P.W.1 Raja Ram that the acquired land adjoins twin cities of Yamuna Nagar and Jagahdri and that the same falls within the Municipal Limits of Jagadhri.He deposed that Convent School of yamuna Nagar adjoins the acquired land. He further deposed that he sold the land vide Ex.P1 at the rate of Rs.2,10,690/- per acre and that the land forming Ex.P1 adjoins the acquired land. While elaborating the situation of the acquired land, he deposed that the land of Thermal plan under commissioning was also adjacent to the acquired land. He went on to state that Civil Hospital, ESI Hospital, Canal Colony, Cinema Houses and Aggarsain College also abutted the acquired land. He further stated that he had been paying property tax to the Municipal Committee prior to the date of the notification. In cross- examination, he deposed that the school and other institution were in existence for the last ten years. In view of the high potentialities of the land, no doubt has been left in my mind that the learned Additional District Judge was right in placing reliance upon Exhibit P1 and, therefore, no case for reducing the amount of compensation has been made out." No meaningful argument has been addressed by the learned counsel for the claimant-landowners to show as to how and in what manner the assessment of the acquired land made by the learned Single Judge was erroneous in any manner. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge had relied upon the sale instance Ex.P1 which pertained to 24 Bighas 10 Biswas of land. Although various other sale deeds were also produced by the claimants but the aforesaid sale deeds are of much smaller area and cannot be stated to be reflecting the market value of the present acquired land. The best evidence produced by the claimants, being Ex.P1, was duly accepted.

The sale deeds relied upon by the State were rejected by the learned Single Judge. So,we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has himself granted a increase of 12% per annum for a period of three years and 10 months over and above, the amount of Rs.2,01,690/-being the per acre price reflected by Ex.P1 and thereafter has assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,294,500/- per acre. We find that the assessment made by the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified and based upon the material available on the record.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

( Viney Mittal )

Judge

( H.S. Bedi )

Judge

August 10, 2005

sks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.