Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 1092
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Brij Lal Bishnoi
Versus
State Of Haryana
Regular First Appeal No. 1724 of 1977,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1999
The court held that the adoption of the belting system for awarding compensation was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, but that the classification of the land into three categories was not warranted.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - BELTING SYSTEM - CLASSIFICATION OF LAND - FAIR MARKET VALUE - JUDICIAL INSTANCES - SALE INSTANCES - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Claimants challenged the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge for the acquisition of their lands. The claimants contended that the belting system adopted by the court for awarding different rates of compensation was erroneous and that they were entitled to at least Rs.500/- per square yard for the acquired land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the adoption of the belting system was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, but that the classification of the land into three categories was not warranted. The court reclassified the land into two segments: (a) lands abutting the State Highway within a distance of 500 Feet, and (b) rest of the lands which are far away from the State Highway and consequently, away from the full planned developed portions.
Issues: 1. Whether the adoption of the belting system for awarding compensation was justified? 2. Whether the classification of the land into three categories was appropriate? 3. What was the fair market value of the acquired land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the adoption of the belting system was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the land abutting the State Highway had a higher market value than the other land. 2. The court held that the classification of the land into three categories was not warranted, as there was no justification for classifying the land into three categories. 3. The court held that the fair market value of the acquired land was Rs.140.50 per square yard for the lands falling within 500 feet from the State Highway and Rs.125/- per square yard for the other lands.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the claimants were partly accepted. They were entitled to the above relief with proportionate costs.
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The claimants in these 152 Regular First Appeals primarily claim that the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide award dated 2.2.1998 is inadequate. In order to substantiate their claim for enhancement, the learned counsel for the claimants have raised the following contentions.:
(a) The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar has fallen in error in adopting belting system for awarding different rates of compensation to the different claimants.
(b) Keeping in mind the location and potential of the acquired land supported by evidence of sale instances (including auctions of similar land by Government departments), the claimants would be entitled to get at least Rs.500/- per square yard for acquisition of their respective lands.
(c) The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar has erred in not relying upon judicial instances proved on the record and consequently, granting enhanced compensation to the claimants on that basis.
2. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Advocate General for State of Haryana that the market value determined by the learned Additional District Judge is just and fair seeing from any method of computation and as such the appeals of the claimants are liable to be dismissed.
3. As 1 have already noticed that all these appeals have been preferred by the claimants alone and the State has not challenged the award of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2.2.1998, thus, practically accepting the correctness of the said award.
4. In order to examine the merits of contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties, reference to basic facts would be necessary. Government of State of Haryana issued a notification on 21.3.1991 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for acquiring an area of 428.91 acre to which corrigendum was issued and the State intended to acquire 429.75 acres of land in Hadbast No. 146. Tehsil and District Hissar. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.3.1992. This land was acquired for development and utilisation of land for residential purpose for Section 16 and parts of Sectors 11, 13, 15 and 17. After inviting the objections, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 16.3.1994 classified the acquired land into three different categories and awarded the following rates of compensation to each kind of land :-
Category A (land adjoining Hisar-Tosham Road) Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre
Category B (land abutting Hisar-Rajgarh railway line) Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre
Category C (all other lands) Rs. 2.00,000/- per acre.
5 The claimants completely felt dissatisfied with the extent of the amount awarded for acquisition of their respective lands and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act, which were forwarded to the learned District Judge, Hisar, in accordance with law. The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide his award dated 2.2.1998 maintained the three different categories of the lands and awarded following compensation to the claimants:-
Category A Rs. 120/- per square yard (Rs.5,80,800/- per acre)
Category B Rs. 100/-per square yard (Rs.4,84,000/-per acre)
Category C Rs.62/-per square yard(approx.) Rs.3,00,000/-per acre)
6. The claimants had examined documentary and oral evidence to substantiate their claim for enhancement. They produced awards Ex.P.67, Ex.P78, Ex.P.79, and Ex.P.80. They also produced and proved on record, amongst others, sale-deeds Ex.P.34, Ex.P.43, Ex.P.44, Ex.P.50, Ex.P.51, Ex.P.61 and Ex.P.62. Reliance was also placed upon the sales effected by Haryana Urban Development Authority, which were brought on record through the statement of.PW4. Ex.P.71 to Ex.P.73 were the bid-sheets of auction held by Rehabilitation Department in relation to the lands in the same revenue estate. In addition to this the claimants had examined 25 witnesses which included the experts, claimants, Patwari, T
