R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984
Date of decision: August 28 ,2008
State of Haryana.
..Appellant
v.
Kartar Singh
..Respondent
(2) R.F.A. No. 1216 of 1984
Kartar Singh
..Appellant
v.
The State of Haryana
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the State of Haryana.
Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for Kartar Singh- land owner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the above-mentioned two appeals as
both these arise out of the common award dated 22.2.1984, passed by
Additional District Judge, Ambala.
Briefly, the facts, as noticed from R.F.A. No. 1216 of 1984, are
that vide notification No. 7313/IL/NGL dated 16.5.1978 issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), 6.37 acres
of land situated in Village Kanwala, Tehsil and District Ambala was
acquired for the purpose of construction of Kanwala Distributory from R.D.
9.440 K.M. (30971.13 feet) to R.D. 17.430 K.M. (57.185.04 feet).
Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.5.1978. The award
was announced on 27.8.1978 granting a compensation of Rs. 9,000/- per
acre. As the land owner was dissatisfied, he filed objections, which were
referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala for consideration.
Vide award dated 22.2.1984, the learned court below enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 30,000/- per acre as against Rs. 9,000/- per acre
R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 2]
granted by the Land Acquisition Collector.
Still dissatisfied, the land owner/appellant is in appeal before
this Court for further enhancement of the compensation, whereas the State is
also in appeal against the award of the learned Additional District Judge
praying for reduction in the compensation awarded.
The appeal came up for hearing earlier on 2.6.1989 and after
hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following
order:
” This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First
Appeal No. 1216 of 1984, filed by the landowner/claimant and
Regular First Appeal No. 720 of 1984, filed by the State of
Haryana, as both these arise out of the common award of the
Additional District Judge, Ambala dated February 22, 1984.
The landowner-claimant has claimed enhanced compensation
in his appeal, whereas the State has sought the indulgence of
this Court for reduction of compensation. The facts of the case
may in the first instance be noticed before discussing the
points.The land measuring 6.37 acres situated in Village
Kanwala, Tehsil and District Ambala was acquired in
pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act (for short, `the Act’) on 16th May, 1978,
for the purpose of construction of Kanwala Distributory from
R.D. 9.440 K.M. To R.D. 17.430 K.M. in village Kanwala,
Tehsil and District Ambala. The Land Acquisition Collector
determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,000/-
per acre. The Additional District Judge, Ambala, on reference
under Section 18 of the Act has determined the market value of
the acquired land at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The Additional
District Judge, Ambala while evaluating the land at Rs.
30,000/- per acre has relied upon the award given by the Land
Acquisition Court dealing with the same notification for the
same purpose for the land situated in village Jandli. The award
Exhibit P-3 which has been relied upon was dealing with the
land situated in village Jandli adjacent to village Kanwala.R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 3]
Mr. Y. K. Sharma, Advocate for the landowner-claimant
has argued that the Additional District Judge has not granted
any compensation for damage which has been suffered by the
appellant on account of severance of his land. He has pointedly
brought to my notice to paragraph 6(ii) of the claim application
in which Rs. 30,000/- was claimed by way of compensation for
the severance of the other land of the applicant by act of
acquisition of the land in question. The relevant plea is
reproduced below:“The compensation for the severance of the other land of
the applicant by act of acquisition of the land in question
amount to Rs. 30,000/. (The middle portion of the killa
has been acquired and the acquired land has bifurcated
the other part of the killa into two small parts and the
acquired land approximately runs in between the two
unacquired portions of the land. Unacquired land which
remains with the applicant has become totally unfit for
cultivation purposes etc. The other land even cannot be
sold in plots for industrial and commercial purposes etc.
as the canal runs in between the same killa and there is
no facility for any passage. So, the acquisition has badly
hit the other land of the applicant.”
The above mentioned averment was denied in the
corresponding paragraph by the State.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of
the view that the Additional District Judge should have framed
an issue on the point of severance and thereafter determine the
compensation payable to the claimant. No issue was framed on
the point of severance. Since the Additional District Judge has
omitted to frame and try an issue which was essential to the
right decision of the reference under Section 18, this case must
be remitted to the Additional District Judge with a direction
that an issue which arises out of the plea raised in paragraph 6
(ii) be framed. The Additional District Judge, Ambala is further
directed to grant appropriate opportunities to the parties to lead
R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 4]
their evidence in support of the issue to be framed by him on
the point of grant of compensation on account of severance and
submit his report to this Court. The evidence along with the
findings thereon would be sent to this Court within one year
from the date when the parties put in appearance before the
Additional District Judge, Ambala. The records of the case
along with the copy of this order be despatched to the court of
Additional District Judge, Ambala, without any delay.”
In terms of the directions given by this Court regarding
recording of specific finding on the question of severance of land, report
dated 14.6.1990 was received from the then Additional District Judge,
Ambala, wherein it was opined that the appellant is not entitled to any
compensation on account of severance of his land, though it was found that
the land of the appellant has been divided into two parts.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
compensation as such determined by the court below is not in consonance
with the evidence produced on record by the appellant. The value of the
land is not less than Rs. 25/- per square yard though only a sum of Rs. 10/-
per square yard was claimed as compensation. He referred to sale deeds Ex.
P.1 and P.2. Sale-deed dated 27.1.1978 ( Ex. P.1) is for land measuring
three marlas for a total consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. The same, according to
the counsel for the appellant, comes about Rs. 22/- per square yard. As far
as sale deed Ex. P.2 is concerned, the same is dated 24.3.1983 for a total
sum of Rs. 9,000/- for land measuring seven marlas. The learned court
below determined the compensation payable to the appellant on the basis of
award dated 19.10.1983 (Ex.P.3) arising out of a notification dated
16.5.1978 for acquisition of land in Village Jandli acquired for the purpose
of construction of Kanwala Distributory from R.D. 9.440 K.M. (30971.13
feet) to R.D. 17.430 K.M. (57185.04 feet).
Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Haryana, on the
other hand, submitted that sale deed (Ex.P.1) cannot be relied as such for
two reasons, namely, that the same is for a small piece of land measuring
three marlas and secondly, the location of the land being part of the sale
deed is not evident from any material on record. Accordingly, the same
cannot be said to be a good piece of evidence to be relied upon for
R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 5]
determination of compensation payable to the appellant. Even otherwise, the
submission is that sale deed (Ex.P.1) is for merely three marlas of land
which cannot be considered for determining the value of a large chunk of
land measuring 6.37 acres. As far as sale deed (Ex.P.2) is concerned, the
submission is that it is almost five years after the date of acquisition and
accordingly does not have any bearing for determination of the value of
land. He further submitted that the evidence led by the State in the form of
two mutations (Exs. R.2 and R.3) have been totally ignored by the court
below.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book.
Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out that any
other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is pending or decided by
this Court.
A perusal of sale deed (Ex.P.2) dated 24.3.1983 shows that the
same is nearly five years after the date of acquisition of land. Accordingly,
the same cannot be considered as a good piece of evidence for determining
the value of the land as on the date of acquisition. The same is accordingly
ignored.
As far as sale deed (Ex.P.1) is concerned, though the same is
about four months prior to the acquisition of land, but the fact cannot be lost
sight that it is only for three marlas of land, the location of which is not
evident from any document placed on record. As is evident from Ex.P.1, the
land in question is a part of Khasra No. 2/17. From the site plan placed on
record, this khasra number could not be located. However, a perusal of the
sale deed shows that on the northern side of the land in question are fields,
whereas on the southern side thereof are residences. In the eastern side,
there is a passage of 11 feet wide, whereas on western side, there are fields,
meaning thereby that the area which forms part of the sale deed (Ex.P.1) is
near the abadi. Accordingly, the value therein also cannot be said to be a
good piece of evidence for evaluation of the acquired land on the cut off
date. Accordingly, in my view, determination of compensation by the
learned court below does not call for any interference and the same is
upheld.
R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 6]
As far as the claim of the appellant for grant of compensation
on account of severance of land is concerned, after the directions by this
Court asking for report on this issue, learned Additional District Judge has
forwarded report dated 14.6.1990. A perusal of the said report shows that it
has been found as a fact by the court below that the minor made of pucca
bricks was taken out of the land of the appellant, as a result of which his
land has been divided into two parts. However, the learned court below
went on to consider the issue as to whether in the circumstance the appellant
was entitled to get any damages on account of severance of land. The
primary reason for declining the damages on account of severance of land
by the learned court below was that there is a culvert provided over the
distributory on which two trucks can pass at the same time. The fields of the
appellant on both sides are connected by this culvert. The construction of
distributory has, in fact, benefitted the appellant as now he was able to get
regular supply of water for irrigating his land, which was otherwise Barani.
Though in the present case, it has come on record that divided
two parts of the land of the appellant are accessible through culvert on the
distributory, but still the fact remains that his one chunk of land has been
divided into two parts and there is difficulty to the appellant to cultivate the
same. As the right of the appellant has been effected, he is entitled to some
element of compensation on account of severance. In my considered
opinion, keeping in view the fact that two parts of the land of the appellant
are not accessible as such, the appellant shall be entitled to damages at the
rate of 50% of the market value on account of severance. Reference can be
made to a judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh and others v. State of
Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector and others, (2008-2) P.L.R. 763
where the issue was acquisition of land for SYL canal. The appellant shall
also be entitled to all statutory benefits as are available under the Act.
Accordingly R.F.A. No.1216 of 1984 filed by the landowner-
appellant is partly allowed with costs, whereas R.F.A. No.720 of 1984 filed
by the State of Haryana for reduction of compensation is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
August 28, 2008
mk
R.F.A. No. 720 of 1984 [ 7]