Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 566
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
State Of Haryana
Versus
Rajinder Kumar And Ors.
Regular First Appeal No. 2351 of 1998,
Decided On : JUNE 3, 1999
The principle of deduction is an essential feature for determination of the amount payable to the claimants in cases where small pieces of land are acquired for a much beneficial public purpose.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - DEDUCTION - SEVERANCE - SECTION 23(1) FOURTHLY - AWARDED AMOUNT - ENHANCEMENT - RELEVANT FACTORS - SALE DEEDS - AUCTION BIDS - LOCATION - DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL - PUBLIC PURPOSE - SMALL PIECES OF LAND - PRINCIPLE OF DEDUCTION - STATUTORY BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana acquired 4635 square yards of land and constructed area for the construction of a railway over-bridge connecting Delhi-Hisar-Sirsa roads in the Municipal limits of City Hissar. The Land Acquisition Collector passed two different awards in relation to the entire acquired land, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 248/- per square yard besides allowing claims in relation to super-structures relating to each individual case. Dissatisfied claimants submitted applications for references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,140/- per square yard in relation to the earlier notification of 1991 and Rs. 2,320/- per square yard in relation to the subsequent notification of 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned District Judge had rightly rejected the sale instances from the zone of consideration as they were not proved in accordance with law. The Court also declined to consider the auction bids as a relevant piece of evidence for final determination of the costs payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land. The Court held that the only evidence which can help the Court in computing reasonably fair market value of the land in question would be the sale instances which were sold in the year 1982 and 1986. The Court applied the principle of deduction to the facts of the case and held that the compensation payable to the claimants would be at the rate of Rs. 1,645/- per square yard. The Court also held that the claimants were entitled to get 50% of the awarded amount as compensation payable under Section 23(1) fourthly.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned District Judge had rightly rejected the sale instances from the zone of consideration? 2. Whether the auction bids can be considered as a relevant piece of evidence for final determination of the costs payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land? 3. What is the only evidence which can help the Court in computing reasonably fair market value of the land in question? 4. Whether the principle of deduction should be applied to the facts of the case? 5. Whether the claimants are entitled to get 50% of the awarded amount as compensation payable under Section 23(1) fourthly?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the learned District Judge had rightly rejected the sale instances from the zone of consideration as they were not proved in accordance with law. The Court relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao. 2. The Court held that the auction bids cannot be considered as a relevant piece of evidence for final determination of the costs payable to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land. The Court held that auction/bid is primarily a speculative feature and the minimum price is already fixed by the authorities and it is only commercial attitude which the bidder bids in such auctions. 3. The Court held that the only evidence which can help the Court in computing reasonably fair market value of the land in question would be the sale instances which were sold in the year 1982 and 1986. 4. The Court held that the principle of deduction should be applied to the facts of the case. The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.S. Shivadevamma and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. 5. The Court held that the claimants were entitled to get 50% of the awarded amount as compensation payable under Section 23(1) fourthly.
Final Decision: The State appeal filed in relation to deduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants are partly accepted while the State appeals in relation to challenge to the award under Section 23(1) fourthly and on other grounds are dismissed. The appeals preferred by all the claimants for enhancement are dismissed while appeals of the claimants in R.F.A. No. 3045 of 1998 and all connected matters are accepted to the limited extent in regard to the payment of compensation under Section 23(1) fourthly.
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. State of Haryana with the purpose of constructing railway over-bridge connecting Delhi-Hisar-Sirsa roads in the Municipal limits of City Hissar acquired 4635 square yards of land and constructed area vide notification dated 11.7.1991 and thereupon issued a corrigendum to this notification dated 30.7.1991 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In furtherance to the notification under Section 4 the Government issued notification under Section 6 of the Act on 28.10.1992. When the work of the over-bridge was in progress it was realised that the Government would need some more area for completion of this project. Resultantly, another notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.2.1993 published on 16.2.1993 intending to acquire another 942 square yards of land at the same points. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5.10.1993. Thus, as on 5.10.1993 the total land acquired by the State Government for completion of the single project was 5577 square yards.
2. The acquired land consisted; of vacant as well as the land on which super-structures, had, been raised. In fact, the area acquired was abutting the main highway on Delhi-Hissar-road i.e. N.H. No. 10. The Land Acquisition Collector passed two different awards in relation to the entire acquired land, While award No. 3-H dated 28.10.1992 dealt with the notification of 11.7.1991 and -awarding a sum of Rs. 248/- per square yard besides allowing claims in relation to super-structures relating to each individual case, vide award dated 6.7.1994, the land Acquisition Collector awarded the same amount in addition to claim for super-structures in relation to the notification dated 4.2.1993.
3. The claimants totally dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded in respect of their lands and super-structures, submitted applications- for references under Section 18 of the Act. The learned land Acquisition Collector made 27 references in relation to the notification dated 11.7.1991 while 5 references were made in relation to the subsequent notification, dated 4.2.1993, The learned District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation vide his judgment dated 4.3.1998 to Rs. 2,140/-, per square yard in relation to the earlier notification of 1991. Further, the learned District judge, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,320/- per square yard vide his award dated 13.9.1997 in relation to the subsequent notification of 1993. Vide these two awards all the 32 references were, answered by the learned District judge. The learned District Judge awarded different amounts to, the respective claimants on account of compensation payable in relation of super-structures etc: However, in relation to the award dated 4.3.1998 to all the 27 claimants, the learned District Judge also awarded 50% of the awarded amount on account of compensation payable for severance under section 23(1 )(4) of the Act.
4. Still being dis-satisfied, the claimants preferred 31 appeals against both the judgments claiming enhancement of the awarded compensation. While the State filed 27 appeals praying that the amount of compensation awarded is liable to be reduced. Consequently, all these regular first appeals arise from the two aforementioned judgments and relate to a common purpose and to a great extent they are inter-dependent as-the learned District Judge has practically followed the compensation awarded in one case as the criteria for awarding compensation in the other with the reduced amount on account of time factor Thus, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.
5. The learned Additional District Judge, as already noticed, pronounced the award on 13.9.1997 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,320/- per square yard in relation to the acquisition of the land under notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 4.2.1993, while he awarded a sum of Rs. 2,140/- per square yard vide award dated 4.3.1998 in relation to
