R. F. A No. 1094 of 1993 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 27.4.2009
1. RFA No. 1094 of 1993 (O&M)
Municipal Committee, Shahbad ..... Appellant
vs
Brij Lal and others ..... Respondents
2. RFA No. 1122 of 1993 (O&M)
Brij Lal (died) through LRs and others ….. Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another ….. Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. C. B. Kaushik, Advocate, for Market Committee.
Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the landowners.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 1094 of 1993
filed by Market Committee, Shahbad, for reduction of compensation for the
acquisition of land and RFA No. 1122 of 1993 has been filed by the landowners
for further increase therein. Both are taken up together as the same award has been
impugned. The facts have been noticed from R. F. A. No. 1094 of 1993.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide
notification dated 20.10.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) acquired land situated within the municipal limits of
Shahbad (Markanda), Tehsil Thanesar, (now in District Kurukshetra), for
construction of the office of Municipal Committee. The Land Acquisition
Collector (for short, ‘the Collector’) vide his award dated 5.1.1990 awarded
compensation @ Rs. 80,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for gair
mumin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the
landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act,
the learned court below vide award dated 25.11.1992, determined the
compensation for the entire acquired land at Rs. 2 lac per acre.
Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below
R. F. A No. 1094 of 1993 -2-
has totally failed to appreciate the fact that the land was situated within the
municipal limits of Shahbad (Markanda). It is located on the GT Road. The land
itself was acquired for the office of Municipal Committee. It is strategically
located in the heart of the town. The sale-deeds produced by the landowners,
exhibits P-3 to P-8 have not been considered at all. As against that the learned
court below has averaged the consideration shown in the sale-deeds produced by
by the landowners and the sale-deeds produced by the State and had awarded
compensation which is not the correct method. The learned court below should
have picked up the sale-deeds showing the best prices and granted the
compensation to the landowners accordingly. In a welfare State after the
landowners are deprived of their livelihood, they are entitled to be compensated
adequately. Even if the land pertaining to the sale-deeds produced by the
landowners are considered at a best location, the acquired land was not inferior as
far as location or its potential is concerned.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there
is no site plan produced on record by the landowners to show the location of the
land pertaining to the sale-deeds produced by them. The land is not located on the
GT Road as is sought to be claimed by the landowners rather it is located on
Shahbad-Barara Road. The value of the land in that area cannot possibly be
compared with the value of the land on GT Road. It was further submitted that the
land in question was acquired vide notification dated 20.10.1989. The sale-deed,
Ex. P-5 is later in time whereas sale-deed, Ex. P7 which has been relied upon by
the learned court below was registered just close to the acquisition of land with a
view to jack up the price.
In addition thereto, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal
Committee, for whose benefit the land in question was acquired, submitted that it
was low lying piece of land, surrounded by Jhugi-Jhompris. There was no
commercial activity in the vicinity, on the basis of which the landowners could
claim that it was prime kind of land. Another fact which is relevant regarding the
location of land is that it was quite close to the slaughter house and cremation
ground. Bandh on Markanda river was not far off place. Considering these facts,
the award of the Collector was quite fair which did not deserve any interference by
the learned court below. Accordingly, even the impugned awarded granting
enhancement of compensation to the landowners deserves to be set aside and the
award of the Collector should be upheld.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the referred record.
As far as the location of the land is concerned, the fact that the same
R. F. A No. 1094 of 1993 -3-
is located within the municipal limits of Shahbad is not in dispute. However, the
claim of the landowners that the same is located on GT Road is not borne out from
the record, rather it is on Shahbad-Barara Road. In para 8 of the impugned award,
on the basis of the statement of statement of RW1 Satish Kumar, Building
Inspector, it was noticed that the acquired land was surrounded by Jughi-jhompris
quite close to Ravidass Basti towards its eastern side and also the colony inhabited
by Dehas (Nemadie Tribe). It was further noticed that the acquired land was
low lying and flooded area. Slaughter house and cremation ground were located
quite close to the acquired land and there was no commercial building/ activity in
the vicinity.
As per site plan, Ex.R1, produced by the State, the acquired land is
about 90 karams from Barara-Road and slaughter house is about 60 karams
therefrom. Ramdasia colony is just adjoining the acquired land and cremation
ground is also located on the site plan. On the other hand, the site plan (Ex. P1),
produced by the landowners shows that there is no approach road to the acquired
land as on the road properties of various owners have been shown. Besides
exhibits P1, P2 and R1, no other site plan has been referred to show exact location
of the sale-deeds produced either by the landowners or by the State. All the sale-
deeds produced by the landowners are of small plots meaning thereby that those
must be located on the road in the abadi area. Similar is the position with regard to
the sale-deeds produced by the State, where two sale-deeds are of 7 kanals 9
marlas and 2 kanals 18 marlas, whereas the other two sale-deeds are of small plots.
In the absence of any convincing evidence to determine the price of the land and
finding that the value as assessed by the Collector was not fair, the learned court
below had to apply some guess work. It was noticed that all the sale-deeds
produced by the State pertained to Patti Kakra. Similarly two sale-deeds produced
by the landowners, which were registered close to the acquisition, were also
pertaining to Patti Kakra. In the circumstances, the learned court below averaged
the value shown in all the sale-deeds and directed for payment of compensation on
that basis for the acquired land without application of any cut which, in my
opinion, does not call for any interference as in the process of averaging the best
sale-deeds produced by the landowners and sale-deeds produced by the State
showing lesser value in the same area have been considered.
It cannot be disputed that onus to show that the value of the acquired
land as is determined by the Collector is not fair, is always on the landowners
which they are required to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In
the absence thereof, once the court finds that there is error in the determination of
R. F. A No. 1094 of 1993 -4-
compensation for the acquired land, some guess work is applied so that the
landowners are not deprived of appropriate compensation even if there is any lapse
on their part.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
27.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge