RFA No.758 of 1991 (O&M) 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No.758 of 1991(O&M)
Decided on November 27,2008.
State of Haryana -- Appellant
vs.
Sher Singh --Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana assisted by
Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.D.A.G,Haryana for the appellants.
Mr.Parbodh Mittal,Advocate,for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of 7 appeals bearing RFA Nos.758
of 1991and X-Obj No.59-CI of 1991, 760 and X-Obj No.58-CI of 1991,
763 of 1991and X-Obj No. 57-CI of 1991,759, 761,762 and 764 of 1991
filed by the State of Haryana and the Cross Objections filed by the
landowners/claimants as common questions of law and facts are involved
therein .
Land measuring 26.011 acres situated in village Satnali Tehsil
and District Mahendergarh was acquired by the Department of Irrigation,
Government of Haryana at public expense for public purpose ,namely for
the construction of Satnali Distributory. Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short,’the Act’) was published in the
Haryana Govt. Gazette on 14.12.1981 followed by a notification of
RFA No.758 of 1991 (O&M) 2
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act.
The Land Acquisition Collector (in short,’the Collector’) vide
his award No.6 dated 28.1.1986 assessed the compensation @ Rs.9000/-
per acre for Chahi; Rs.8000/- per acre for Barani; Rs.6000/- per acre for
Bhood and Rs.3000/- per acre for Gair-mumkin land.
In the objections filed under Section 18 of the Act, it was,
inter-alia, pleaded by the landowners that the market value of the acquired
land at the time of its acquisition, was not less than Rs.50,000/- per acre. It
was further alleged that the claimants are also entitled to damages on
account of severance of their lands due to construction of canal.
In the written statement, the State denied the averments made
in the claim petitions and pleaded that fair and just compensation has
already been awarded to the landowners.
The learned Reference Court vide its award dated 05.11.1990,
re-determined the compensation @ Rs.20,000/- per acre for Chahi land; @
Rs.16,000/- per acre for Barani land; and @ Rs.14,000/- per acre for
Bhood land and awarded all statutory benefits in terms of the provisions
of the amended Act.
Mr. H.S.Hooda, Advocate General,Haryana, assisted by Mr.
Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.D.A.G,Haryana, has contended that the learned Court
below has erred in relying upon sale deed Ex.P-2 and in not appreciating
the sale transactions Exs. R-2 and R-3 produced by the appellant-State.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant-State that the land
measuring 24 kanals 13 marlas was sold vide sale deed dated 01.9.1982
(Ex.R-2) for a consideration of Rs.9500/- which comes to Rs. 3084/- per
acre and land measuring 33 kanals 4 marlas was sold vide sale deed dated
RFA No.758 of 1991 (O&M) 3
21.7.1982 (Ex.R-3) for Rs. 16,000/- which comes to Rs. 4000/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the appellant/State contended that value of Gair-
Mumkin land arising out of the sale deeds Exs. R-2 and R-3, is more than
the award of the Collector, as such there is no justification for the learned
Reference Court to award compensation @ Rs. 14,000/- per acre for
Bhood land. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that
while relying upon a post notification sale deed Ex. P-2, the learned
Reference Court has erred in applying only a cut of 50%, although cut to
the extent of 86% deserves to be applied. In this regard, reliance has been
placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of
K.S.Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land
Acquisition Officer and another, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 62
While arguing for the cross objections filed by the
landowners/claimants and countering the appeals filed by the State of
Haryana, Mr. Parbodh Mittal, learned counsel for the objectors has
vehemently contended that the learned Reference Court has committed
an error on two counts, firstly the cut of 50% has been illegally applied to
the sale deed Ex.P-2 and secondly, only 5% damages have been awarded
on account of severance. He also relied upon a decision of Supreme
Court in the case of Atma Singh (died) through LRs & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Anr. AIR 2008 Supreme Court 709 requesting this Court to
reduce the cut of 50% to 10%.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record with their assistance.
Insofar as the sale transactions Exs. R-2 and R-3 are
concerned, both are post notification sale deeds as the notification under
RFA No.758 of 1991 (O&M) 4
Section 4 of the Act was issued on 14.12.1981 and the sale deed Ex.R-2
is dated 1.9.1982 and sale deed Ex.R-3 is dated 21.7.1982. Secondly,
learned State counsel has contended that the value arising out of two sale
deeds is Rs.3000/- or Rs. 4000/- which is more than the award of the
Collector, awarded @ Rs.3000/- for gair-Mumkin land,this should have
been considered.
I have perused the sale deeds Exs. R-2 and R-3 but I could
not find the nature of the land mentioned in the sale deeds, therefore, it
cannot be equated with Gair-Mumkin land. No compensation has been
awarded by the learned Reference Court in respect of gair-mumkin land.
Thus, the price of lands involved in sale deeds Exs. R-2 and R-3 is less than
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, as such, the
same cannot be taken into consideration in view of Section 25 of the Act
and have to be ignored.
The second argument of the learned counsel for the State is in
respect of the application of cut of 50%. The judgment of the Apex Court
in K.S.Shivadevamma’s Case (Supra) is not applicable on the facts of
these cases because in the cited case, it was observed that under the
Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out and another 33-
1/3% is required to be deducted for the purpose of providing amenities. In
the present case, however, neither the land has been acquired for
commercial or residential purposes nor any building rule applies, therefore,
in my view, the ratio of law laid down in the case of K.S.Shivadevamma
(Supra) does not apply.
Now coming to the contention raised by learned counsel for
the respondents/objectors who has submitted that 50% cut is on the higher
RFA No.758 of 1991 (O&M) 5
side and has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Atma Singh’s
Case (Supra) and submitted that 10% cut should have been applied. Even
this judgment is not applicable because in that case the land was acquired
for construction of a co-operative sugar mill. It was observed by the
Supreme Court that if an industry is established on the acquired land, if runs
efficiently, earns money, or makes profit every year. The return from the
lands acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices, or Institution
cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired
for the purpose of setting up of a factory or industry. After all the factory
cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return,
there is no justification for making any deduction from the prices exhibited
by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part
of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony
for the staff working in the factory. Nevertheless where the remaining part
of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good
profit it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of the land
shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned
in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under
consideration. Under these circumstances, a cut of 10% was applied.
Learned counsel for the appellant was at pains to submits that even colony
is also an industry. I afraid that this argument cannot be accepted. So far
as the second argument is concerned that the learned Court below has
committed an error in awarding 5% of compensation on the market value
on account of severance of the land, I rely upon the decision of this case
passed in RFA No. 1337 of 1991 (Surjit Singh etc. LRs of deceased Nasib
Singh and others v. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition
RFA No.758 of 1991 (O&M) 6
Collector) decided on April 09,2008 and I hold that the cross-objectors
are entitled to 50% compensation/damages on account of severance on the
market value of the acquired land.
In view of my above discussion, the appeals filed by the State
of Haryana are dismissed whereas the Cross Objections filed by the
landowners/claimants are partly allowed to the extent that they shall be
entitled to 50% of severance charges on the market value of the acquired
land with all statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended
Act. No costs.
November 27,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge