1998 Supreme(P&H) 1533

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Union Of India (Uoi)
Versus
Balbir Singh
Regular First Appeal No. 2382 of 1997,
Decided On : DECEMBER 10, 1998

The principle of cut should be applied to the amount of compensation awarded in land acquisition cases where the area in question is not a developed area.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - CUT - BELTING SYSTEM - SALE DEEDS - ADMISSIBILITY - DEVELOPMENT - PRINCIPLE OF AVERAGE PRICE - AWARD - RELEVANCE - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

42.7 acres of land in village Shamshabad, Tehsil Sirsa, District Sirsa was intended to be acquired by the State of Haryana as declared in a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), published on 17.2.1990. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the official gazette of the State of Haryana on 12.3.1990 as a follow up to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The exact area actually acquired on measurement was stated to be 42.80 acres and the difference of 0.3 acres was stated to be a difference resulting from error in measurement. This was so accepted by the revenue authorities as well as the Court below. Notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued, which were contested before the Collector, who vide his award dated 12.6.1990 awarded the following compensation keeping in view the nature of the land :- i. Nehri land Rs. 65,000/- per acre ii. Barani land Rs. 50,000/- per acre Land abutting the Sirsa Dabwali Road upto depth of 40 karams and Gair Mumkin plots/abadi land. Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the sale deeds produced by the respondents were inadmissible in evidence and could not form the basis for awarding the amount of compensation to the claimants. The Court also held that the principle of cut should be applied to the amount of compensation awarded, and that the cut should be 20%. The Court further held that the belting system was not appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, and that the principle of average price should be applied to determine the market value of the acquired land. The Court also held that the award Ex.P.72 was a relevant material piece of evidence which had to be considered by the Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the sale deeds produced by the respondents were admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the principle of cut should be applied to the amount of compensation awarded? 3. Whether the belting system was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case? 4. Whether the principle of average price should be applied to determine the market value of the acquired land? 5. Whether the award Ex.P.72 was a relevant material piece of evidence which had to be considered by the Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sale deeds produced by the respondents were inadmissible in evidence because they were not proved in accordance with law. 2. The principle of cut should be applied to the amount of compensation awarded because the area in question was not a developed area. 3. The belting system was not appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case because the land was being acquired for a national purpose and not for a commercial or profitable activity. 4. The principle of average price should be applied to determine the market value of the acquired land because the sale deeds related to comparatively small pieces of land. 5. The award Ex.P.72 was a relevant material piece of evidence which had to be considered by the Court because it related to the lands in Mirpur which were the lands which had been acquired for the same purpose by the notification of the same date.

Final Decision: The appeals/cross objections would be allowed to the extent that the landowners-Claimants would be awarded a sum of Rs. 5,41,760/- per acre with statutory benefits available to them, more particularly under Sections 23(1-A), 232(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Consequently, the appeals of the Union of India as well as that of the claimants are partly accepted and the impugned award/judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dated 13.8.1997 shall stand modified to that extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.