Back
1999 Supreme(P&H) 347
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
State Of Haryana
Versus
Ruldu
Regular First Appeal No. 998 of 1989,
Decided On : APRIL 1, 1999
The Court applied the principle of average based on judicial pronouncements along with sale instances to determine the compensation payable to the claimants, considering the location, potentiality, approach, and surroundings of the acquired land.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION - SALE INSTANCES - JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS - AVERAGE PRINCIPLE - STATUTORY BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana acquired 3637 kanals 12 marlas of land from the revenue estate of village Alipur for a public purpose, i.e., for the extension of Hisar Cantonment. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation based on the category of the land. Dissatisfied claimants moved references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which were disposed of by a common judgment. Both claimants and the State preferred appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the claimants had voluntarily given up their claim for enhancement of compensation for structures, tubewells, damage to crops, and other such amounts before the Court and were estopped from challenging the same in the regular first appeal. The Court also found that the acquired land was located at a good distance from the National Highway and no industrial complex or habitation was near the land. The Court rejected the sale instances produced by both parties as they failed to examine the vendor or vendee and did not summon witnesses from the Registrars Office to prove their genuineness and authenticity.
Issues: 1. Whether the claimants were estopped from challenging the compensation awarded for structures, tubewells, damage to crops, and other such amounts? 2. What was the appropriate method for determining the compensation payable to the claimants? 3. Whether the sale instances produced by the parties were admissible in evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the claimants were estopped from challenging the compensation awarded for structures, tubewells, damage to crops, and other such amounts as they had voluntarily given up their claim for enhancement of compensation before the Court. 2. The Court held that the best way to award compensation to the claimants would be to proportionately reduce the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court in a similar case, considering the location, potentiality, approach, and surroundings of the present land. 3. The Court held that the sale instances produced by the parties were not admissible in evidence as the parties failed to examine the vendor or vendee and did not summon witnesses from the Registrars Office to prove their genuineness and authenticity.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the State and partly accepted the appeals preferred by the claimants. The Court awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 46,500.00 per acre for Nehri, Chahi, and Tar Barani land and Rs. 23,250.00 per acre for Banjar Qadium and Tibba lands. The claimants were also entitled to receive all the statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Act.
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Vide award dated 30.1.1989 learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, by a common judgment disposed of 60 references moved under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Dis-satisfied from the calculation of compensation awarded the claimants preferred appeals for enhancement of the amount awarded while the State Governments preferred appeals for reduction of the awarded amount. In all 113 appeals arise from this common judgment. As the said appeals raise common question of law and facts and arise from one and the same judgment, it would be appropriate to dispose of all these 113 appeals also by a common judgment.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the State of Haryana intending to acquire 3637 kanals 12 marlas of lands from the revenue estate of village Alipur for a public purpose i.e. for extension of Hisar Cantonment to be utilised for the Ministry of Defence Union of India. Thus it issued notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and, published on 25.6.1984. Possession of the entire land was taken without any variation. The learned Land Acquisition Collector vide his Award No. 2 of 85-86 granted the compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of the category to which the land belonged. The compensation awarded was as under:-
Nehri Land
Rs. 20,000/- per acre
Barani Land
Rs. 15,000/- per acre
Tibba Land
Rs. 10,0007- per acre
3. Being dis-satisfied from the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collector the claimants moved references under Section 18 of the Act which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 30.1.1989 as already noticed. The Collector had also awarded sum of Rs.42,557.75 on account of damage to the crops, while another sum of Rs.85,693/- was awarded as compensation payable in relation to buildings and super-structures. This reflects the consolidated figure on these two counts awarded to the various claimants before the learned Land Acquisition Collector. The learned Additional District Judge maintained the classifications but enhanced the amount as follows:-
Nehri/Chahi Land
Rs. 35,0007- per acre
Barani/Tal Land
Rs. 25,0007- per acre
Tibba Land
Rs. 17,0007- per acre
The Additional District Judge in para No. 26 of the judgment clearly noticed as undents:
"As regards claim of the petitioners for enhancement or de novo assessment of compensation in respect of the tube-wells Jhallars, structures, Kothas, trees and standing crops, no enhancement is called for because the same were not pressed during the course of arguments. So, the assessment made by the L.A.C. in respect of these is held to be correct and no enhancement is called for in the same. So, this issue to this extent goes in favour of the claimants."
Being dis-satisfied from the amount awarded the present appeals have been preferred by the claimants as well as by the State.
4 At the very outset, I would like to deal with the compensation payable to the claimants on account of damage to crops, buildings, structures, canals, tubewells etc. I have specifically referred above to paragraph No. 26 of the judgment where the learned Additional District Judge clearly held that the claim for enhancement of compensation on these counts was not pressed and, therefore, the amount granted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was maintained. In the grounds of appeal/memorandum of appeal no such ground has been taken by the appellants that the above finding or concession has been incorrectly recorded and the claimants never made any such concession. Though in the grounds of appeal vague reference has been made for enhancement of the compensation amount.
5. Once a claim is given up by a party voluntarily before the Court it cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue all over again. This principle would have to be applied with greater rigour if no such ground challenging the recording of such a concession is taken in the grounds of
