JUDGMENT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. These 337 appeals have been filed by the landowners and the State of Haryana in respect of the awards given by the courts at Gurgaon. The landowners claim that the market value of the land was Rs. 500/- per square yard and that the court has erred in awarding a lesser amount. The State of Haryana claims that the compensation is highly excessive. Is it so? A few facts may be noticed.
2. On November 17, 1982 the State of Haryana had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the development of Sector 15 in Gurgaon. The land was to be utilised for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. On December 10, 1985, the notification Under Section 6 in respect of land measuring 256.84 acres was issued. On September 21, 1986, the Collector had announced the award and determined the compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Barani and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The landowners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector. They, consequently, sought a reference. The court after consideration of the matter determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 68/- per square yard. The market value of the land which was within 10 yards from the National Highway No. 8 viz. Delhi-Jaipur Road was assessed at Rs. 136/- per square yard. Not satisfied, the landowners as well as the State of Haryana have filed these appeals.
3. Even though the District Judge had framed various issues, learned counsel for the parties in these appeals have only addressed arguments in respect of Issue No. 1 viz. – What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP.
4. The oral evidence consists of the statements of the landowners; a registered valuer viz. PW4, Sh. Adlakha and a retired Naib Sadar Kanungo, Shri Shanti Narain PW6. The documentary evidence can be broadly divided into two categories. Exhibits P1 to P6, P8, P17, and P38 are the awards given by different courts in respect of different pieces of land in nearby areas. Exhibits P18 to P22 and P30 are the copies of the various sale deeds brought on record by the parties.
5. The short question is – What was the market value of the land? The landowners have, for obvious reasons made a tall claim and gone to the extent of suggesting that it was not less than Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. The documentary evidence on record shows that the price was much lesser.
6. There are a total of 12 sale deeds produced on the record. A broad examination of these sale deeds brings out an average price of Rs. 135/- per square yard. However, the sales relate to very small pieces of land ranging from 14.212 square yards to 635 square yards. The instances of such sales cannot furnish a safe yardstick for determining the market value of the land especially when the acquisition is of a large area measuring 256.84 acres. It is true that the sale transactions relate to a point of time which is close to the date of the issue of notification Under Section 4. The sale deeds appear to have been executed between April 18, 1980 to November 12, 1982. Yet, in view of the fact that these relate to small pieces of land, it does not appear to be safe to make these the basis for fixing the market value. This leaves the evidence in the form of the awards given by different courts referring the adjoining lands. The position in this behalf can be broadly summarised as under:-
Exhibit Date of Date of Award Rate per
Notification square yard
1 2 3 4
P-1 2.6.81 2.11.85 Rs. 63.50
P-2 10.12.82 16.11.89 Rs. 70.00
P-3 22.03.82 15.01.90 Rs. 80.00
P-4 22.03.84 25.01.90 Rs. 80.00
P-5 22.03.84 26.02.90 Rs. 80.00
P-6 17.11.82 16.03.90 Rs. 68.00
P-8 10.12.84 12.05.90 Rs. 223.00
P-17 10.01.83 14.09.92 Rs. 68.00
A perusal of the above shows that the market value determined in respect of the land acquired in November, 1982 was Rs. 68/- per square yard. In respect of the area which was acquired in June, 1981, the price was fixed at Rs. 63.50. It had risen to Rs. 70/- in December, 1982 and still higher to Rs. 80/- in respect of land acquired in March 1984.
7. Mr. Aggarwal who argued the cases on behalf of the appellants (landowners) pointed out that for the land in village Chakarpur which was acquired in December 1984, the market value assessed by the court was Rs. 223/- per square yard. Accordingly, the counsel contended that the learned District Judge had erred in determining the market value of the land @ Rs. 68/- per square yard.
8. The contention is misconceived. The award at Exhibit P.8 as referred to by the counsel relates to land in village Chakarpur. It is very close to Delhi. Even the notification in respect of this land was issued more than two years after the notification which is the subject matter of these appeals. The award in respect of this land which was acquired much later and which is much closer to Delhi, cannot form a safe measure for determining the market value of the land in question. Even otherwise, learned counsel have not been able to refer to any evidence to indicate that the value assessed by the learned court calls for interference.
9. Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, the Advocate General for the State of Haryana contended that the market value assessed by the courts was highly excessive. It works out to more than Rs. 3,29,000/- per acre.
10. Learned counsel is right insofar as the actual market value determined by the court is concerned. However, a fact which cannot be ignored is that the land is close to Delhi. It is at a distance of about half a kilometre from the District Courts. It is close to the Civil Hospital. It is surrounded by posh colonies developed by various private colonisers. The land has tremendous potential. At present, the prices have undoubtedly shot up. However, even in 1981, the land was very valuable and carried a good price tag. In this situation, it cannot be said that the market value as assessed by the learned court is high so as to call for interference by this court.
Resultantly, there appears to be no ground to interfere with the ‘market value’ as assessed by the learned courts.
L.PA. No. 741 of 1996
11. On October 12, 1983, the State of Haryana had issued a notification Under Section 4 for acquisition of land measuring 14 acres, 7 kanals and 14 marias in village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for the purpose of construction and installation of the Wire less Transmitting Station. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on April 23, 1987. The landowners were not satisfied. They sought a reference. The court assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 70/- per square yard. Solatium and other charges were also awarded. Aggrieved by this award, the Union of India for whose benefit the land had been acquired filed Regular First Appeal No. 988 of 1994. On April 28, 1995, it was dismissed for non-prosecution. An application for restoration was filed on May 20, 1995. Vide order dated May 31, 1995, the learned Single Jude dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the order, the Union of India filed this appeal. Alongwith the appeal, Civil Misc. Application No. 1184 of 1996 for condonation of a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal was also filed. Civil Misc Application No. 1185 of 1996 for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No. 2 who had expired on April 3, 1993 was also filed.
Notice of these applications was ordered to be issued. Mr. C.B. Goel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 8.
12. In the application Under Section 5, no satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal has been given. The only reason given is that the fresh addresses of the respondents were not available. Fresh addresses were not required for filing an appeal. The sequence of events in this case viz. the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, the dismissal of the application for restoration and the delay of 237 days in filing the appeal, is symbolic of the casual manner in which the cases are being prosecuted. No satisfactory explanation having been given, no ground to condone the delay is made out. However, even if the delay is ignored; learned counsel was unable to address any argument to show that the market value as determined by the court was either excessive or unfair. Resultantly, no ground for interference with the award given by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon is made out. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed.
13. In the circumstances of the case, we allow the application for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No. 2. Necessary entry be made in the memo of parties.
14. In RFA No. 2337, it was contended that the court has erred in assessing the market value of the land at Rs. 70/- per square yard. Admittedly, the land had been acquired vide notification dated October 12, 1983. In view of the instances as noticed above, the market value of the land acquired in June 1981 was assessed at Rs. 65.50 per square yard while the market value of the land acquired in November, 1982 was assessed at Rs. 68/- per square yard. The land which is the subject matter of this appeal having been acquired some time later, the market value was assessed at Rs. 70/- per square yard. No evidence has been referred to indicate that the price is low. It, consequently, calls for no interference.
15. R.F.A. No. 2538 of 1992 has been filed by the State of Haryana to challenge the award given by the court. The landowners who were impleaded during the pendency of the appeal have filed cross objections. Notice was given. Counsel for the parties were heard. Nothing was pointed out by the learned counsel for the landowners to justify any increase in the compensation awarded by the court. Consequently, no ground for the grant of any relief is made out. The appeal as well as the cross objections are dismissed.
16. Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General contended that in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Yadavrao P. Pathade v. State of Maharashtra, J.T. 1996(2) S.C. 240. No interest is admissible on the solatium. The rule in this behalf has been clearly laid down in the aforementioned case. The interest shall, accordingly, be worked out in all the cases.
17. No other argument was raised in any other-case.
In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. All the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.