1999 Supreme(P&H) 148

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Bindu Garg
Versus
State Of Haryana
Regular First Appeal No. 3192 of 1993,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLE OF AVERAGES - CUT APPLICABLE TO THE DETERMINED VALUE - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE PUNJAB SCHEDULED ROADS AND CONTROLLED AREAS RESTRICTION OF UNREGULATED DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1963 - EFFECT - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - TREES AND SUPERSTRUCTURES - SEVERANCE DAMAGES.

Fact of the Case:

The State Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (the Act) intending to acquire nearly 331.58 acres of land for residential and commercial purposes in Sectors 4 and 5 of Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the landowners at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for plain area, Rs. 1,84,660/- per acre for Muga Canal and Rs. 2,10,796/- per acre for Sewage Water Nalla. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the landowners filed objections which resulted in the filing of more than one hundred references under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge, Karnal. The Additional District Judge, Karnal, awarded a sum of Rs. 90/- per square yard. Both the landowners and the State filed appeals challenging the award.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the principle of averages adopted by the learned Additional District Judge was in consonance with the settled principles of law. The Court also held that the cut of 30% could be applied to the present case, keeping in view the evidence on record, the contribution of the State, location and potential of the acquired land and charges on the account of development. The Court further held that the claimants were entitled to 50% of the market value of the unacquired land measuring 14.17 bighas as damages for its severance from the acquired land.

Issues: 1. Whether the principle of averages was correctly applied by the learned Additional District Judge in determining the fair market value of the acquired land? 2. Whether any cut should be applied to the determined value of the land in view of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963? 3. Whether the claimants were entitled to enhancement of compensation for trees and superstructures? 4. Whether the claimants were entitled to severance damages for the unacquired land?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principle of averages is a well-settled principle of law for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. The Court must consider all the relevant factors, including the sale instances, awards, and judgments, and apply the principle of averages to reach a fair and just conclusion. 2. The notification under Section 4 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, imposes restrictions on the rights of the landowners in relation to the manner in which the land could be dealt with subsequent to the declaration. However, this does not mean that the sale deeds executed after the issuance of the notification are distressed sales. The Court must consider all the relevant factors, including the location, potential, and development of the area, to determine the fair market value of the land. 3. The claimants are entitled to compensation for trees and superstructures existing on the acquired land. The Court must consider the evidence on record, including the reports of valuers and the Local Commissioner, to determine the fair and reasonable compensation for trees and superstructures. 4. The claimants are entitled to severance damages for the unacquired land if the acquired land has rendered the unacquired land completely inaccessible and a total loss.

Final Decision: The appeals preferred by the claimants were partly accepted and the compensation of the land acquired was enhanced from Rs. 90/- per square yards to Rs. 145/- per square yards. All the appeals preferred by the State were dismissed. The claimants were entitled to the statutory benefits provided under Section 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.