R. F. A No. 2143 of 1996 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 10.11.2008
1. R. F. A No. 2143 of 1996 (O&M)
Kaur Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
2. R. F. A No. 2088 of 1996 (O&M)
Balwant Singh and others ….. Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents
3. R. F. A No. 2142 of 1996 (O&M)
Surjit Singh and others ….. Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents
4. R. F. A No. 2144 of 1996 (O&M)
Kaur Singh and others ….. Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents
5. R. F. A No. 2145 of 1996 (O&M)
Gurdev Kaur ….. Appellant
vs
The State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents
6. R. F. A No. 2146 of 1996 (O&M)
Gurmail Kaur and others ….. Appellants
vs
The State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2088 and
2142 to 2146 of 1996, filed by the landowners for further enhancement of
R. F. A No. 2143 of 1996 (O&M) 2
compensation, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. However, the
facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2143 of 1996.
Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 22.8.1990,
issued under Section 4 of the Act, an area of 3 acres 7 kanals 15 marlas
situated in the revenue of Village Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur,
was acquired for construction of Sub-Tehsil Complex at Longowal. The
award was announced by the Collector on 12.4.1994, granting
compensation @ of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre for 20 karam wide tract along
the road and Rs. 80,000/- for the remaining land. The learned Additional
District Judge vide judgment dated 24.7.1996, determined the value of the
land at Rs. 1,62,900/- per acre for 20 karam wide tract along the road and
Rs. 1,08,600/- per acre at the back of 20 karam wide tract.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the appellants
on record. It has failed to consider the strategic location and potentiality of
the land. The Police Station, Longowal, was situated just in the close
vicinity. The area otherwise was also commercialized as it is located on the
main road. The land had great potential for being used as residential and
commercial purpose. The complex of Longowal Institute of Engineering
and Technology was located around a kilometer from the acquired land
which is surrounded by houses and shops. Bus-stand was nearly 1/2
kilometer from there on the same road and the grain market was 200 yards.
Referring to sale-deeds Ex. A-1 to A-3, it was submitted that the same have
not been considered by the learned court below for the purpose of
determination of fair value. The land forming part of sale-deed Ex. A-1
which was situated just on the same road in the close vicinity whereas land
of sale-deed Ex. A-2 was located of the main road but on the road leading to
Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology. As far as land in sale-
deeds produced by the State are concerned, the submission is that these have
not been located on the site plan or the same are located far off from the
main road.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
the value of the land as assessed is much more than what the landowners
deserve. The land in the vicinity was not so developed as it projected by the
landowners. There were isolated constructions. It was with the acquisition
R. F. A No. 2143 of 1996 (O&M) 3
of land for Tehsil complex that the construction activity started in the area.
He further submitted that the transactions for small plots could not be
considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of large chunk of
land measuring 3 acres 7 kanals 15 marlas. However, he could not point out
the exact location of the land pertaining to the sale-deed produced by the
State Ex. R-10 and R-11.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance
perused the referred record.
A perusal of the site plan Ex. AW2/A shows that the acquired
land is situated on the main road at a crossing from where one road leads to
Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, which is about one
kilometer from there. The police station is also shown to be located near the
acquired land though not on the main road but behind the acquired land.
There are other commercial and residential establishments in the vicinity of
the land. Even the grain market has also been set up there which shows that
the area was not so under developed as is sought to be projected by the
State.
Now coming to the sale-deeds produced by the appellants. A
perusal of the site-plan shows that the land pertaining to sale-deed Ex. A-1
is located on the main road, opposite the grain market, where 9½ marlas
land was sold for Rs. 30,000/- on 13.6.1989 at an average price of Rs.
5,05,200/- per acre. Vide sale-deed, Ex. A-2, 10 marlas of land along with
construction was sold for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 14.6.1989. This sale-
deed with constructed area cannot be said to be entirely for value of land.
The land pertaining to Ex. A-3 has not been pointed by the learned counsel
for the appellants in the site plan. As far as sale-deed produced by the State
are concerned, only Ex. R-10 and R-11 are shown on the site plan which are
located far off the main road towards side in which Longowal Institute of
Engineering and Technology is situated. These cannot be made basis for
determination of fair value of the land which located on the main road.
Now in the end what is left is sale deed Ex. A-1 which is
pertaining to the land located on the main road. Though the learned court
below commented about the genuineness thereof merely by recording that
consideration money had not been paid before the Sub-Registrar but sale
consideration was considered for averaging. In my opinion, the same cannot
R. F. A No. 2143 of 1996 (O&M) 4
be discarded as such for the simple reason that the land in the present case
was acquired vide notification dated 22.8.1990 whereas the sale-deed Ex.
A-1 was registered more than a year back on 13.6.1989. The parties thereto
have not been shown to be related or known to any of the person whose land
has been acquired. Similar is the position with regard to Ex. A-2. Now the
issue which is for consideration is as to whether the value shown in the
Ex. A-1 as such should be considered or a reasonable cut is to be applied for
arriving at fair value, which is measuring 3 acres 7 kanals 15 marlas.
Keeping in view the strategic location of the land forming part of sale-deed
Ex. A-1 which is located just opposite the grain market and was merely for a
plot of 9½ marlas, in my opinion, 60% cut is reasonable.
Accordingly, the value of the acquired land for the first
category of land which is located on the main road upto the depth of 20
karams is assessed at rounded of figure of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre instead of
Rs. 1,62,900/- per acre and the value of the land located behind it is
increased in the same proportion as it was determined by the learned court
below. Accordingly, the same is assessed at Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre as
against Rs. 1,08,600/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all
statutory benefits as are available under the Act.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
10.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge