R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular First Appeal No.19 of 1995
Date of Decision: July 24, 2008
Gulab Singh
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondents-State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos.3415
of 1993, 81 and 2932 of 1994, 19 to 32, 69 to 75, 116, 180, 181,
201, 221, 271, 307, 308 to 313, 390, 1577, 1705 to 1740, 1809,
2421 of 1995 and 1880 of 1996 as all these appeals arise out of the
common award. The facts are being taken from RFA No.19 of 1995.
Haryana Government issued notification No.LAC(P)/
NTLA-90/3446 dated 23.10.1989 under Section 4 of the Land
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :2 :
Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Through
this notification, land of the appellants was sought to be acquired.
Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.10.1990.
The land sought to be acquired fell in revenue estate of Village Taraf
Afgan and Village Sarain Pilkhan, District Panipat and was for the
public purpose of development and utilisation of the land as
industrial, commercial and transport area in Sector 25, Part-II,
Panipat. Though the notification pertained to area measuring 171.68
acres in village Taraf Afgan and 26.22 acres in Sarain Pilkhan, thus,
making a total of 197.92 acres, but the present appeals pertain to an
area of 143.35 acres, there being stay order pertaining to 53.90
acres of the remaining land sought to be acquired as per the
notification.
While pronouncing his award, the Land Acquisition
Collector classified the land as plain and low lying. Even low lying
area was further sub-classified into three classes, described as A, B
& C. These areas were divided depending upon depression of 2 feet,
3 feet and 8 feet. The Land Acquisition Collector, after taking into
account various relevant considerations, assessed the market value
of a plain land at Rs.2 lacs per acre and for three different low lying
areas in categories A, B and C at the rate of Rs.1,65,000/-per acre,
Rs.1,48,000/- per acre and Rs.60,800/- per acre, respectively. Being
not satisfied with the rates so awarded, land owners preferred
reference petitions seeking enhancement of the market price as
assessed pleading that various industrial concerns and commercial
establishments had come up in the land acquired. It was pleaded that
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :3 :
the value of the land as assessed was highly low. It was accordingly
pleaded that the price of the acquired land would not be less than
Rs.500/- per square yard at any rate. In addition, it was pleaded that
earlier also the land from village Taraf Afgan was acquired vide
award No.14 and 15 dated 14.2.1979. This was in pursuance of the
notification dated 30.8.1977. Against the award given by the Land
Acquisition Collector, the land owners had filed references before the
Addl.District Judge, in regard to said acquisition and he has given
his award on 11.3.1985 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.25/-
per square yard. The land owners in the said case had then
approached to this court against the decision of Addl.District Judge
and compensation was enhanced to Rs.39-20P as on 30.8.1977.
Thus, the increase of 12% per annum was prayed for in order to
determine the market value of the acquired land. Addl.District Judge,
however, by taking into consideration the compensation assessed in
respect of notification dated 15.12.1982, assessed the value of the
land at Rs.81/-.
The State of Haryana contested the references and filed
written reply to each of the petition. It is stated that the Land
Acquisition Collector, after perusing the genuine registered sale
deeds, had awarded fair and adequate compensation and there was
no justification to enhance the compensation as pleaded by the land
owners.
The Addl.District Judge, Panipat accordingly framed
various issues and went into the references and ultimately held that
the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :4 :
Rs.81/- per square yard for their acquired land, besides additional
compensation of 6% per annum from 30.8.1977 to 14.12.1982, in
addition to solatium and additional amount at the rate of 12% per
annum on the market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The
appellants were also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per
annum for the first year from the date of the award on the enhanced
amount of compensation and at the rate of 15% per annum for
subsequent period till the date of realisation of amount, in the light of
the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act. Still feeling
dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellants have filed
the present Regular First Appeals seeking further enhancement of
the compensation as assessed by the Addl.District Judge, Panipat.
Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend
that while assessing the rate of land acquired to be Rs.81/- per
square yard, the main reliance has been placed on the rate as
assessed by the court in earlier acquisition in the vicinity of the area
of the land acquired. It is pointed out that the area in the same
village, i.e., Taraf Afgan was acquired through notification dated
15.12.1982, where the compensation as assessed by the
Addl.District Judge, Panipat was determined as Rs.44/- per square
yard, which has been taken as a base. 12% per year increase has
been granted on this rate and thus rate as determined in the present
acquisition has been assessed at Rs.81/- per square yard. The
prayer made is very simple and straight-forward. The counsel would
point out that sum of Rs.44/- per square yard, as assessed by
Addl.District Judge, Panipat pursuant to the notification issued on
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :5 :
15.12.1982, was challenged before this court through Regular First
Appeal and the court had enhanced the said compensation to
Rs.72/- per square yard. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in
this regard titled Rabinder Nath Kataiya and another Vs. Haryana
State Through Collector, Karnal, (1996-1) Punjab Law Reporter 648
is so referred. Against the said decision of the Single Judge of this
court, a Letters Patent Appeal was also filed and the rate of land
acquired pursuant to the said notification dated 15.12.1982 was
further enhanced to Rs.80/- per squire yard. This judgment is
reported as Jogi Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another,
(1997-2) Punjab Law Reporter 303. It is accordingly prayed that the
base which was taken as Rs.44/- per square yard while assessing
the market value of the land now acquired is required to be taken as
Rs.80/- per square yard and thereafter increase at the rate of 12%
per year from the date of notification, i.e., 15.12.1982 should be
assessed to arrive at the proper rate of compensation. The grievance
is also made in regard to the action of the court in awarding
additional compensation of 6% per annum from the date when the
land remained under threat of acquisition from the earlier notification
issued on 30.8.1977 to 14.12.1982. Plea is that the damage under
Section 48 of the Act for this should also be assessed at the rate of
12% per annum and there is no justification for awarding additional
compensation of 6% per annum for this period. In addition, it is also
submitted that additional sum at the rate of 12% per annum should
further be awarded from the year 1982 to year 1989 as an interest for
the loss suffered by the appellants.
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :6 :
Mr.H.S.Hooda, Learned Advocate General appearing for
the State of Haryana would seriously contest the right of the
appellants to claim interest in addition to the other claims made by
them. He would say with justification that the appellants cannot have
the advantage of having enhanced rate vis-a-vis earlier acquisition
and still ask for interest on the ground that the land had been kept
under threat of acquisition. The learned Advocate General had also
disputed the claim made by the appellants seeking 12% interest in
addition to the compensation from 1977 to 1982 by invoking the
provisions of Section 48 of the Act. He would say that the 6% per
annum awarded as additional amount would suffice in this regard.
The learned Advocate General would also submit that the
compensation as assessed by Addl.District Judge, Panipat is fair and
reasonable and would not call for any enhancement.
I have considered the rival submissions made before me
by the learned counsel representing the respective appellants and
the State.
It is not disputed before me that market value of the land
in this case has been assessed on the basis of the earlier award
announced as the land situated is almost similar in these two
revenue estates. It is also noticed that most of the land, now
acquired through this notification, was originally notified for
acquisition under Section 4 on 30.8.1977 and in this case the
compensation was assessed Rs.39/- per square yard by the High
Court. The land situated in the revenue estate of Taraf Afgan was
assessed at Rs.42/- per square yard as on 30.8.1977. It is
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :7 :
accordingly pleaded before the Addl.District Judge to determine the
market value of the land so acquired pursuant to the present
notification dated 23.10.1989 by allowing 12% over the market value
so assessed. For this purpose, reference was also made to number
of judgments before the court. This fact is not seriously disputed that
the appellants should be entitled to increase of 12% per annum on
the market value as determined by earlier judicial pronouncements
with respect to the land which was sought to be acquired or was
acquired through the same notification. It can, thus, be said that the
land presently acquired is comparable to the land which was earlier
acquired through notifications and the rate of which was assessed at
Rs.42/- per square yard as on 30.8.1977 or Rs.44/- as determined
with respect to notification dated 15.12.1982. Having so stated, the
Addl.District Judge took Rs.44/- per square yard as the base price.
This was the price determined in respect of notification dated
15.12.1982. Thereafter, an increase of 12% per annum was allowed
for a period of seven years and accordingly the price of the land
acquired was assessed at Rs.81/- per square yard. The counsel for
the appellants would now only want this enhanced price of the land
acquired through notification dated 15.12.1982 at the rate of Rs.80/-
per square yard to be taken as a base on the date of notification
dated 15.12.1982 and for assessment of the market price of the land
by giving increase of 12% per annum over this price as determined.
There is good and valid justification in the plea made by the counsel
for the appellants. The approach adopted by the Addl.District Judge,
Panipat to take the price of Rs.44/- per square yard, which was price
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :8 :
determined of the land acquired through notification dated
15.12.1982, is a fair one and the appellants now want this court to
take the enhanced price of the land acquired through this notification
into consideration while assessing the value of the land acquired
through the present notification dated 23.10.1989. This plea made by
the counsel for the appellants is well founded and merit acceptance.
It is not disputed before me that the land, which is situated in the
same revenue estates and acquired through notification dated
15.12.1982, was assessed at the rate of Rs.80/- per square yard,
besides the entitlement of grant of all statutory benefits of the
amended provisions of Sections 23(1-A) 23(2) and 28 of the Act as
per Jogi Ram’s case (supra). It would, thus, be fair to take this as the
base price for determining the market price of the land acquired
through the present notification. Taking this as the base price as on
15.12.1982, the market price of the land acquired would work out to
be Rs.147.20 by giving increase of 12% per annum on Rs.80/- which
was the price assessed of the land in terms of notification dated
15.12.1982. This will stand rounded off to Rs.147/- per square yard. I
also see justification in the submission made by the counsel for the
appellants that they are entitled to the damage at the rate of 12% per
annum from the year 1977 to 1982 as the present land remained
under threat of acquisition through a notification, but was not
subsequently acquired till the year 1989. The Addl.District Judge,
Panipat has allowed additional compensation at the rate of 6% per
annum for this period. The counsel for the appellants would draw my
attention to the ratio of law laid down in Smt.Bharpai Vs. State of
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 :9 :
Haryana, (1999-2) Punjab Law Reporter 721 to say that a
compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 48 instead of 6% was
allowed by this court under similar circumstances. The relevant
observations of this court in this regard are as under:-
“I am unable to reconcile myself with the view taken by
the learned Additional District in awarding 6%
compensation in face of compensation of 12% as
stipulated under the Act. The learned Additional District
(Judge) ought to have applied the principle as such
stipulated in the statute itself. There is no dispute before
me that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued
between 30th August, 1977 and 14th December, 1982.
Section 23(1-A) was inserted by an amendment Act 68 of
1984. In other words the statute stood amended much
prior to the pronouncement of the judgment and even
adjudication of right of the parties by the learned
Additional District Judge.
Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that in addition
to the relief granted by the Letters Patent Appeal in
regard to the enhancement of compensation payable for
the acquired land, the present appellants-applicants
would also be entitled to compensation at the rate of 12%
under Section 48 read with Section 23(1-A) of the Act,
instead of 6%, as allowed by the Ld.Judge in the
impugned judgment.”
The appellants,thus, have made out a case for grant of
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 10 :
compensation at the rate of 12% under Section 48 read with Section
23(1-A) of the Act, instead of 6% as allowed by Addl.District Judge. It
would be pertinent to notice that Smt.Bharpai’s case (supra) is
concerning the same area acquired through earlier notifications.
However, I am not impressed with the submission made by the
counsel for the appellants that they would be entitled to an additional
sum at the rate of Rs.12% as interest from the year 1982 to 1989.
While assessing the value of the land acquired, the rate as
determined in the year 1982 and awarded in respect of similarly
situated land has been taken as a base. The rate as assessed in the
year 1989 has been arrived at by giving increase of 12% per annum
over this rate. The appellants would get double benefit in case
interest is awarded to them. No case for award under this head, as
such, is made out and the prayer made in this regard is declined.
In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants are
allowed to the extent that they are held entitled to compensation of
their acquired land at the rate of Rs.147/- per square yard. They are
further held entitled to grant of all statutory benefits of the amended
provisions under Section 23(1-A) 23(2) and 28 of the Act. In addition,
the appellants are also held entitled to additional compensation of
12% per annum from 30.8.1977 to 14.12.1982. The appeals filed by
the State would stand dismissed.
July 24, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH )
ramesh JUDGE
R.F.A.No.19 of 1995 : 11 :