RFA2515 of 1998 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No. 2515 of 1998
Decided on December23,2008.
State of Haryana and another --- Appellants
vs.
Badan Singh -- Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana,with
Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana,for the appellants in the
appeals filed by the State and for the respondents in the
appeals filed by the landowners/claimants.
Mr.S.N.Chopra ,Advocate,for appellants in RFA Nos. 1303 to
1314 of 1998
Mr.P.S.Saini,Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.1521
to 1525,1561and 997of 1998..
Mr.Anil Kshetarpal,Advocate,for appellants in RFA
Nos. 1268 to 1279,993,994,1244 and 1568 of 1998
None for other respondents/claimants.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
This judgment shall dispose of 62 Regular First Appeals
bearing Nos. 2515 of 1998, 3051of 1999 with X-Obj No 28-CI of 2000,
1525,1303 to 1314, 1521 to 1524, 1551 to 1576,1898,2512 to 2514, 2516
to 2521, 3936,993,994, 1270,1269,1244 and 1268 all of 1998, filed by the
State of Haryana as well as by the claimants as common question of law and
facts are involved therein. However, the facts are taken from RFA No.2515
of 1998.
RFA2515 of 1998 2
Land measuring 56.08 acres was notified under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act') dated 24.3.1992, for
the public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as
commercial area for Sector 2 (Part-II), Kurukshetra. Follow up notification
of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published on
23.3.1993.
The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,'the Collector') found
55.97 acres of land on the spot at the time of actual measurement and
classified it in to three categories as per its nature and kind . The acquired
land is thus reproduced in a tabulated form as under:-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Name of Villages Chahi Gair Mumkin Banjar Kadim
No. K- M K- M K- M
1. Pipli 359.06 9- 14 21- 08
2. Bir Pipli 22.01 1- 06 —
——————————————————————————————-
Total: 381.07 11. 00 21. 08
——————————————————————————————
After hearing the interested persons/landowners, the Collector
treated Gair-Mumkin or Banjar Kadim land at par with the Chahi land. In
their objections filed under Section 9 of the Act, the claimants demanded
compensation between Rs.1000/- to Rs.6000/- per square yard on the
ground that the acquired land was surrounded by National Highway on
both the sides coupled with developed sectors of the Haryana Urban
Development Authority (for short, HUDA). The Collector vide his award
No.9 dated 22.3.1995 determined the compensation of the acquired land @
Rs.4,98,172.80. per acre being the rate of Chahi land. Separate
compensation was awarded in respect of super structures/tubewell which
were found existing over the acquired land, on the basis of the rates
supplied by the Executive Engineer, HUDA Division, Karnal. Similarly,
RFA2515 of 1998 3
compensation was also granted in respect of trees in terms of the
assessment made by Sub Divisional Engineer Horticulture, Sub Division,
HUDA, Karnal. Besides, the land owners were allowed to reap the crop
and were granted other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of
amended Act.
The compensation awarded by the Collector could not satisfy
the landowners which led to the filing of objections under Section 18 of
the Act, in which it was, inter-alia, alleged that market value of the
acquired land was within the range of Rs.2000/- to Rs.6000/- per square
yard. It was further alleged that inspite of the location of the acquired
land which is situated on the G.T.Road surrounded by Youth Hostel,
PWD Rest House, Parakeet Restaurant, Jawahar Ganj Market, Pipli bus
stand, Food Grain Market, Godowns of F.C.I, New Grain Market, Petrol
Pump, proposed site of Power House, Cold Storage, Rice-Shellers, Radio-
Station, Railway Station, Telephone Exchange, S.P.Office, D.C.Office,
S.D.M. Office, Mini Secretariat, Panchayat Bhavan, D.R.O. Office,
D.P.R.O. Office, Treasury Office, the potentiality has not been duly
assessed. It was also alleged that the acquired land has been included
within the Municipal Limit of Kurukshetra vide Notification No. 25/11/82-
2C dated 1.10.1984 and has been declared a controlled area vide
notification No. 530-VDP-69/483 dated 22.1.1969 and notification No.
LAC (P)- NTLA, 73/2249 dated 29.6.1973.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck
by the trial Court in reference petition No.91 of 1996 (Randhir Singh v.
The State of Haryana):-
RFA2515 of 1998 4
1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the
time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation
in view of Section 48 of the Act ? OPP
3.Whether the compensation has not been given as
per land acquired ? OPP
4.Relief:
In reference petition Nos. 119 of 1996 to 204 of 1996 and
225 of 1996 to 228 of 1996, following issues were framed on 24.9.1996:-
1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the
time of its acquisition ? OPP
2. Whether any tree or other structures were there on the
acquired land and if so, whether the compensation
awarded for the same was inadequate and is liable to be
enhanced ? OPP
3. Relief:
An additional issue was also framed on 2.12.1997 in Reference
petition No.333 of 1997 titled as Anand Sarup Goyal etc. v. State of
Haryana,which is as under:-
Additional Issue No.1(a)
“Whether the petition is time barred ? OPR”
The landowners/claimants examined Krishan Singla, Registry
Clerk Tehsil Office, Kurukshetra as PW-1 who proved certified copies of
sale deeds Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12, Dr. Baldev Parkash a vendee of sale deed
Ex. P-3 as PW-2, Baldev Kumar Goyal, a vendee of Plot sold vide sale
RFA2515 of 1998 5
deed Ex.P-7 as PW-3, Niyamat Rai vendor PW-4, deposed about sale deed
Ex.P4 whereas Jagan Nath PW 5, a vendor of the sale deed Ex.P12,
Prem Kumar Chawla, a vendee, PW-6 proved sale deed Ex. P10, another
Baldev Kumar PW-7 vendee in sale deed Ex.P-1, Nazir Ahmed Lambardar
of village Pipli as PW-8, who deposed about attesting of sale deeds Ex P-2,
Ex.P6, Ex.P-7 and Ex.P8, Nand Kishore PW-9 vendee deposed about the
sale deed No.108 6/1 dated 10.6.1994, Surender Kamboj Draftsman as
PW-10, who proved site plans, Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14, Kuldip Kumar
Clerk,Municipal Committee, Thanesar as PW-11 also proved copies issued
by the Committee as Ex.P-15 and Ex.P16, Sher Singh, Draftsman PW-12
deposed about notification Ex.P-16 and the resolution No. 1358 dated
27.12.1990 of the committee as Ex.P-17. He also deposed about public
notice dated 25.1.1991 as Ex.P-18 and building scheme of area No.2 Ex.P-
19 site plan Ex.P-20 and copy of schedule of clauses Ex.,P-21, copy of
resolution and public notices Ex.P-22 and Ex.P-23, boundaries of schedule
of clauses Ex.P-24 and Ex. P-25 and site plan of scheme No.3 Ex.P-26 and
other public notice Ex.P-27. Raghbir Singh Patwari Halqa Pipli as PW-
13 also deposed about the site plans of villages Pipli and Bir Pipli Ex.P-
13 and Ex.P-14. Smt. Chanderkanta Head Registration Clerk,D.C.Office,
Kurukshetra PW-14 deposed about D.C.rate list Ex.P-28, Ex-29 and Ex.P-
30.Brg. Raj Mohan Singh PW-15 a vendee of a plot deposed about sale
deed Ex.P-32 and that site plan Ex.P-31 was got sanctioned and the report
of surveyor was Ex.P-33 and that the value of acquired land was not less
than Rs.10 lacs to Rs.12.lacs per acre at the time of acquisition. Karan
Singh PW-16 a vendee proved the sale deed Ex.P-34 and that of report of
surveyor was Ex.P-35. Didar Singh an Architect PW-17 proved his report
RFA2515 of 1998 6
Exs.P-33 and Ex.P-35, Chander Kanta HRC, D.C.office Kurukshetra PW-18
deposed about the sale deeds Ex.P-36 to Ex. P-42. Puran Chand Labourer
PW-19 a vendee of a plot also proved sale deed Ex.P-39 that his plot was
on G.T road and was of the value of Rs. 3000/- per square yard. Krishan
Kumar PW-20 a vendor also deposed about sale deed Ex.P-40, Sher Chand
PW-21 also a vendee petitioner also deposed about sale deed Ex.P-42.
S.K.Aggarwal, Deputy Manager, State Bank of India, PW 22 proved photo
copy of newspaper regarding building of Staff Training Centre at
Kurukshetra or Karnal as Ex.P-46, photo copy of original application as
Ex.P-47. Surinder Kumar Kamboj Draftsman PW-23 proved his site plan
Ex.P-48, Sh. Yash Pal Clerk, HUDA,Kurukshetra PW24 proved form X-
CC Ex.P49 pertaining to Ram Singh son of Natha Ram, resident of
Kurukshetra and that the said plot was for commercial purposes, situated in
Sector 7 measuring 2.75 X 8.25 mtr. for Rs.2,51,000/-. Sh. S.L.Chotani an
Architect of Kurukshetra PW-25 deposed about his report Ex.P-50 of the
construction. Krishna Singal, Registration Clerk,Thanesar as PW-26
deposed about sale deeds Ex.P-51 to Ex.P-54, Sh.Pawan Kumar PW-27 a
vendor also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-54 regarding a plot situated
at Ladwa-Kurukshetra road. Sh. Niranjan Singh son of Tarlok Singh PW-
28, one of the petitioners deposed about the selling of his land vide sale
deeds Ex.P-52 and Ex.P-53. Prem Kumar Singh PW-29 also a vendor of a
plot proved sale deeds Ex.P-2, Maninder Singh JE office of C.C.P.N. C.R
Panchkula, PW-30 proved photo copy of notification dated 2.1.1969 Ex.
P-55 and copy of development plan Ex.P-56 and release order in favour of
Ramesh Kumar Gupta Ex.P-57 and approval of building plan of Ramesh
Gupta Ex.P-58, Harbans Lal a vendee PW 31 deposed about the sale deed
RFA2515 of 1998 7
Ex.P-59, Dayal Chand PW-32 also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-43,
Rasid PW 33 deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-61 and Ex.62, Mohinder
Singh PW-34, one of the petitioners stated that earlier notification under
Section 4 of the Act about the acquired land was issued in the year 1972.
He also deposed about the existence of other building around the acquired
land and that the price of land at the time of acquisition was not less than
Rs. 5000/- to Rs.6000/- per square yard. He also deposed about the sale
deed Ex.P-51. Ishwer Singh PW-35 one of the petitioners, also deposed
about his ownership of the plot measuring 26’x30′ by virtue of decree
Ex.P-63. He also deposed about the sale deed Ex.P-36. Ramesh Gupta
PW-36 also one of the petitioners deposed about his land measuring 13
kanals and 13 marlas and that they have construction after getting site plan
sanctioned in the year 1981. He also deposed about impounding of sale
deed Exs.P-64 to P-69. Notification regarding acquired land was also
proved as Ex.P-70, final notification as Ex.P-71, site plans Ex.P-72 and
Ex.P-73, copy of jamabandi for the year 1992-93 is Ex.P-74,
photographs of the acquired land Ex.P-75 to Ex.P-85 with negatives thereof
Exs P-86 to P-96. Scheme of HUDA Ex.P97. Nanak Chand PW-37 son of
vendor deposed about sale deed Ex. P-62. He also proved his power of
attorney Ex.P-98. Prem Lata PW-38 Registry Clerk also deposed about the
certified copies of sale deed Ex.P-99. Sh.S.P.Khetarpal, learned counsel
for the petitioners also tendered copies of orders Ex.P-100 dated 22.3.1995,
copy of award dated 1.9.1992 Ex.P101 and copy of award dated 15.11.1996
Ex.P-102. Prem Chand Mehta Retd Naib Tehsildar PW-39 proved site
plan Ex.P 103 and index Ex.P 104. Kishan Singh PW-40 deposed about
sale deed Ex.105 of a plot so sold by Nathu Ram to Kuldip Kaur.
RFA2515 of 1998 8
On behalf of the respondents, they examined Braham Pal
Patwari L.A.O. Office Panchkula as RW-1, who deposed about some sale
deeds and site plans and judgments.
The sale deeds produced by both the landowners as well as the
State of Haryana, are tabulated as under:-
Sr. No. and No of Sale Area K.M Price (Rs.) Distance Average
E.x no. Deed/Date from Price per
acquired acre (Rs.)
land
1 (P-1) 66/7.4.93 0-1 20,000/- 300 mtr 32,00,000/-
2 (P-2) 4347/20.2.95 0-2-1/2 1,50,000/- Within land 96,00,000/-
acq
3 (P-3) 385/25.4.91 0-1-1/4 50,000/- 300 mtr 64,00,000/-
4 (P-4) 8530/.1.6.92 0-4-1/2 1,61,000/- 200 mtr 57,25,000/-
5 (P-5) 1086/10.6.94 1-1-1/4 50,000/- 600 mtr 53,33,000/-
6 (P-6) 4454/22.2.91 0-2 30,000/- 100mtr 24,00,000/-
7 (P- 7 ) 2688/25.11.9 0-1 30,000/- 1110 mtr 48,00,000/-
1
8 (P-8) 3354/1.1.92. 0-2 40,000/- 1500 mtr 32,00,000/-
9 (P-9) 3599/15.1.92 0-1 42,000/- 1100 mtr 67,20,000/-
10 (P-10) 4583/6.3.92 0-2 50,000/- 1350 mtr 40,00,000/-
11 (P-11) 3419/16.3.94 0-1-1/2 32,000/- 34,13,333/-
12 (P-12) 1481/26.6.91 0-1 25,000/- Within land 40,00,000/-
acq.
13 (P- 51) 1676/16.7.90 '1-15 1,75,000/- Do 8,00,000/-
14 (P -52) 2448/4.11.91 0-4 50,000/- Do 20,00,000/-
15 (P - 53) 1564/5.7.90 01/15 1,75,000/- Do 8,00,000/-
16 (P-54) 1856/31.7.91 0-4 90,000/- 1200 mtr 36,00,000/
Sr. No. and No of Sale Area K.M Price (Rs.) Price Per Distance
E.x no. Deed/Date Acre from
acquired land
1 (R-1) 173/1/10.4.9 4-0 1,80,000/- 3,60,000/- 1.5 K.M
1 away from
acquired land
towards
North
2 (R-2) 482/1/3.5.91 0-8 10,000/- 2,00,000/- Do
3(R-4) 915/1/29.5.9 '4-11 1,90,000/- 3,34,065/- Do towards
1 South of
acquired land
RFA2515 of 1998 9
Sr. No. and No of Sale Area K.M Price (Rs.) Price Per Distance
E.x no. Deed/Date Acre from
acquired land
4 (R-5) 1693/1/11.7. '1-04 25,000/- 1,66,666/- 2 K.M Away
91 towards
South of
acquired land
5 (R-6) 1871/1/31.7. 1-00 15,000/- 1,20,000/- 2 KM away
91 from
acquired land
The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration the
evidence led by both the parties, observed that as far as the sale
consideration shown in the aforesaid sale deeds produced on record by
the landowners are concerned, these sale deeds pertain to small piece of
land out of which maximum area sold was 1 kanal15 marla. It was held
that these sale deeds presumably are of the plots meant for commercial
purposes and the sale consideration given in such transactions cannot be
made ‘price basis’ for determination of market value even if 50% cut is
applied. It was further observed that the market price on the average
basis of the said sale deeds comes to about Rs.20 lacs but the said criteria
is not tenable. The learned Reference Court thus relied upon judgment
Ex.P-101dated 1.9.1992 rendered by learned Addl. District Judge,
Kurukshetra in respect of land falling in Sector 11 situated in front of
new Bus Stand on Pipli-Kurukshetra road whose exact position has been
shown in the site plan Ex.P-14 for which Rs.4,84,000/- per acre (Rs.100/-
per sq.yard) was awarded as compensation as on 21.4.1987 which was
maintained by the High Court while dismissing the Regular First Appeal
on 10.1.1994.Thus, taking into consideration the potentiality of the
acquired land and keeping in view the fact that Rs. 4,84,000/- per acre
( Rs.100/-per square yard) was already fixed as market value of the
RFA2515 of 1998 10
acquired land of Sector 11 as well as that D.C.rates fixed for the said
area where the acquired land situates were Rs.200/- per sq. yard for
residential and Rs.3000/- per sq. yard for commercial purposes and in
the adjoining sectors falling towards west and south i.e. Sectors 5,7 and 4
which were purely residential and away from G.T.road, a sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- per acre as compensation was granted by means of judgment Ex.
R-11 passed by the then learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra and
Ex.P-102 dated 15.11.1996 passed by Sh.S.S.Lamba, the then learned
Addl.District Judge, Kurukshetra against the award of Land Acquisition
Collector giving the compensation from Rs. One lac to Rs.2 and ½ lacs per
acre of villages Palawal, Umri, Devidass Pura and Ratgal, the market value
of the acquired land was determined @ Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre (Rs.196.28
per sq. yard).
As a matter of fact, the learned Reference Court has enhanced
the compensation almost double than what has been awarded by the
Collector giving a rise of Rs.20/- per year for the gap of five year in
between notification of Sector 11 dated 21.4.1987 to the notification
issued in the present case on 24.3.1992. The increase of 20% per year has
been given keeping in view of potentiality of the acquired land otherwise,
normal rule is 10% as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special
Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa
Sahib 2002 SC 1558. Mr.P.S.Saini, learned counsel for the appellants has
contended that learned Reference Court has committed a serious error of
law by ignoring all the sale deeds observing that they pertain to small
pieces of land which were presumably meant for commercial purposes.
Thus, they cannot be made basis for determination of the market value
RFA2515 of 1998 11
even if 50% cut is applied. The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that even for the determination of market value of a large
chunk of land sale instances of small pieces of land can also be considered
and relied upon.
Learned counsel for the appellants has then referred to sale
deeds Exs. P1 to P-12 and Ex.P-51 to P-54 and contended that out of these
16 sale deeds, sale deeds Exs.P-1,P-3, P-6 ,P-7,P-8, P-9,P-10, P-12, P-52
and P-54 are within a period of one year from 1.4.1991 to 30.3.1992 and
should be considered since notification in this case was issued on
24.3.1992. He further contended that the average amount of the aforesaid
10 sale deeds comes to Rs. 40,32,000/- per acre and since the sale instances
are of small pieces of land, therefore, even if 25% is applied as
deduction, the value of the land would come to Rs. 30,24,000/- per acre.
He further submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed a
palpable error of law in relying upon the previous award pertaining to
Sector 11 which is far away from Sector 2 where value of the land has
been determined for the year 1987. Thus, the entire thrust of the
argument is that the sale deeds should be considered and compensation
should be awarded acordingly.
Mr.S.N.Chopra, learned counsel appearing for some of the
landowners/claimants has submitted that when the land is acquired for
commercial purposes, the value could not be assessed as that of an
agricultural land. The learned counsel has submitted that the land in
question was declared to be a controlled area on 2.1.1969 and was
included in the Municipal Limits w.e.f. 1.10.1984. The acquired land
has high potentiality as it is surrounded by P.W.D Rest House, Motel
RFA2515 of 1998 12
Building and is also situated on the G.T. Road. The learned counsel has
assailed the findings on issue No.2 on the ground that the land owners are
entitled to compensation in view of Section 48 of the Act as the land in
question remained under threat of acquisition since the year 1973 as
there was a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act but the same
had lapsed.
As against this, Mr.H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General,
Haryana, vehemently contended that firstly the acquired land was a
undeveloped vacant land which is touching the G.T. Road only to the
extent of 4 acres and Pipli-Kurukshetra Road to the extent of 3 acres.
It is further submitted that all the sale instances relied upon by the
landowners are distantly located except for sale deeds Ex.P-12, P-51, P-
52 and P-53 as shown in the site plan Ex.P-103. The four sale deeds
touching the acquired land, namely Ex. P-12 is only 0Kanal 1 Marla, Ex. P-
51 is 1Kanal 15 Marlas, Ex. P-52 is 0 Kanal 4 Marlas and Ex.P-53 is
1Kanal 15 Marlas. These sale instances are of very small pieces of land in
comparison to the acquired land measuring 56.08 acres (55.97 acres actual).
The sale instances Exs. P-12,P-51, P-52 and P-53 are either touching the
National Highway or the State Highway and are obviously fetching high
prices and cannot be relied upon for rest of the land which is beyond
the National Highway or the State Highway. In this regard, Learned State
Counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in V. Hanumantha
Reddy (Dead) by LR’s vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Officer
2003 (12) S.C.C.642.
As regards potentiality, it is contended by learned Counsel
for the State that there was no development activity when the land in
RFA2515 of 1998 13
question was acquired and the future potentiality cannot be seen in view
of the case law reported in Rajashekhar Sankappa Taradandi vs.
Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer 1996 (3) S.C.R 503.
In the end, it is submitted that the acquired land was not reserved for
commercial purposes but was being used for community utility. In the
alternative, it was submitted that although the sale deeds relied upon by the
landowners/claimants are not applicable in the present case, but even if it
is presumed for the sake of argument though not admitted, that they are
applicable and can be relied upon, in that situation, the deduction claimed
is 86% in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
K.S.Shivadevamma and others Vs.Assistant Commissioner and Land
Acquisition Officer and and another 1996 LACC 326.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and
have perused the record with their assistance.
From the perusal of site plan Ex.P-103, only four sale deeds
Exs. P12, P51, P-52 and P- 53 are found to be within the acquired land
and rest of the sale deeds relied upon by the learned counsel for the
claimants are far away having altogether different features. Now the
question is whether these four sale deeds Exs. P-12, P 51, P-52 and P-53
reflect the true market value of the acquired land. Vide sale deed Ex.P-
12 dated 26.6.1991 only one marla of land (20 sq.yards) has been sold
abutting Delhi-Karnal road for a sum of Rs.25,000/- which comes to
Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. Sale deed Ex. P-52 dated 4.11.1991 is in respect
of only 4 marlas of land sold for a value of Rs.50,000/- which comes to
Rs. 20,00,000/- located on the Kurukshetra Pipli road. Sale deeds Exs.P-
51 and P-53 are dated 16.7.1990 and 05.7.1990 respectively in respect of
RFA2515 of 1998 14
1 kanal 15 marlas of land each located almost on Kurukshetra-Pipli road
adjoining to a shopping centre, for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- which
comes to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre each. In my view, there is a great
variation in the value of sale deeds depending upon its size and location
and these cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of taking average as
suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants because plot having
different features cannot be clubbed together for the purpose of taking
average. Further-more, these four sale instances which are part of the
acquired land cannot be set up as a guiding factor for determination of
compensation since as per sale deed Ex.P-12, only one marla of land sold
on 26.6.1991 fetches the value of Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre. The vendee of
the land (Ex.P-12) namely Jagan Nath has appeared as PW-5 and
categorically stated in the cross examination that plot (Ex.P-12) was
purchased for the purpose of resale on premium as the plot was meant for
commercial purposes. Whereas vide sale deed Ex.P-52 dated 4.11.1991
which is subsequent to Ex.P-12, 4 marlas of land has been sold at the price
of Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre. Further more, in July 1990, 1 kanal 15 marlas
of land has been sold vide sale deed Exs.P-51 and P-53 within the
acquired land almost abutting Kurukshetra-Pipli road and is quite adjacent
to the land sold vide Ex.P-52 for Rs.8,00,000/- per acre only. The value
arising out of sale deeds Ex. P-51 and Ex. P-53 is less than the value
determined by the reference Court.
In view of the huge variation of the sale price of the plot of
land, its size, location and potential, rest of the acquired land which is
much inferior as only 4 acres of land is abutting National-Highway and
only 3 acres of land is abutting State-Highway the sale deeds Ex.P-12,
RFA2515 of 1998 15
Ex.P-51, Ex.P-52 and Ex.P-53 cannot be made the basis for determination
of compensation in the present cases. Thus, I do not find any error in
the order of the reference Court whereby for determining the compensation
of the acquired land, reliance has been placed on judgment Ex. 101 dated
1.9.1992 and for gap of two notifications, Rs.20/- has been awarded per
year.
In respect of the claim made under Section 48 of the Act, it is
suffice to say that there is no evidence on record to prove damages having
been suffered by the claimants because it is provided under Section 48 Sub
Section (2) whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition,
it shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs
reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under
this Act relating to the said land. The appellants have failed to prove as to
what was the costs incurred by them because in 1973, the land was earlier
acquired and the notification had itself elapsed.
In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the
claimants as well as the State of Haryana and the Cross Objections are
dismissed. The award of the reference Court is maintained. The parties
shall bear their own costs.
December 23,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
RR Judge
Refer to Reporter-- Yes