Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Baljinder Kaur - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 484 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-01-2022
The Court held that the Reference Court (RC) erred in ignoring the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana, which depicted a price lower than the amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), as Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) only prohibits the RC from awarding compensation lower than that assessed by the LAC, but does not bar the consideration of sale deeds with a lesser value. The Court also held that the RC erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land village-wise, as there was no significant difference in the geographical location or topography of the land in the contiguous villages, and the market value of the land in the area did not increase significantly due to its locational disadvantage. The Court further held that the RC erred in relying on previous judgments assessing the market value of land in the area, as the market value of land is subject to fluctuations and cannot be determined solely based on previous assessments. The Court also held that the RC erred in relying on sale instances of small-sized developed plots to assess the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land. The Court concluded that the RC committed several errors in assessing the market value of the acquired land and set aside the impugned judgments, upholding the awards passed by the LAC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two separate acquisitions of land by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for developing residential and commercial colonies in the villages of Jandli, Kanwali, Kanwala, Saunda, and Sarai Mehdood. The landowners challenged the awards passed by the LAC, contending that the market value of the acquired land was assessed at a lower rate than the prevailing market price. The Reference Court (RC) reassessed the market value of the acquired land and awarded higher compensation to the landowners. The State of Haryana filed appeals against the RC's judgments, while the landowners filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the RC erred in ignoring the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana, which depicted a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC, as Section 25 of the LA Act only prohibits the RC from awarding compensation lower than that assessed by the LAC, but does not bar the consideration of sale deeds with a lesser value. The Court also held that the RC erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land village-wise, as there was no significant difference in the geographical location or topography of the land in the contiguous villages, and the market value of the land in the area did not increase significantly due to its locational disadvantage. The Court further held that the RC erred in relying on previous judgments assessing the market value of land in the area, as the market value of land is subject to fluctuations and cannot be determined solely based on previous assessments. The Court also held that the RC erred in relying on sale instances of small-sized developed plots to assess the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land. The Court concluded that the RC committed several errors in assessing the market value of the acquired land and set aside the impugned judgments, upholding the awards passed by the LAC.
Issues: 1. Whether the sale exemplars depicting price less than the amount assessed by the LAC are liable to be ignored while assessing the market value of the acquired land? 2. Which, out of the following two methods, should be preferred to assess the market value of the acquired land: a) The comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period with respect to the parcels of the land, either forming part of the acquired land or located nearby? or b) The judicial assessment of the market value of the land located nearby which was acquired by a separate acquisition proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the RC erred in ignoring the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana, which depicted a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC, as Section 25 of the LA Act only prohibits the RC from awarding compensation lower than that assessed by the LAC, but does not bar the consideration of sale deeds with a lesser value. The Court also held that the RC erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land village-wise, as there was no significant difference in the geographical location or topography of the land in the contiguous villages, and the market value of the land in the area did not increase significantly due to its locational disadvantage. The Court further held that the RC erred in relying on previous judgments assessing the market value of land in the area, as the market value of land is subject to fluctuations and cannot be determined solely based on previous assessments. The Court also held that the RC erred in relying on sale instances of small-sized developed plots to assess the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land. The Court concluded that the RC committed several errors in assessing the market value of the acquired land and set aside the impugned judgments, upholding the awards passed by the LAC.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned judgments of the RC and upheld the awards passed by the LAC, dismissing the appeals filed by the landowners and allowing the appeals filed by the State of Haryana.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - INTRODUCTION
1.1 By this judgment, a batch of regular first appeals (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment) filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) with respect to the adjoining parcels of the acquired land, located in the villages, namely Jandli, Kanwali, Kanwala, Saunda and Sarai Mehdood, shall stand disposed of. Although, the land has been acquired by two separate notifications, however, keeping in view the fact that both the acquisitions are with respect to the adjoining pieces of the land in the same area, the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is in the same year, the assessment of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the LAC) as well the award passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as the RC) is almost identical, the evidence led by the landowners is more or less the same and the learned counsel representing the parties are not only common, but even their arguments, in the concerned cases, are the same, therefore, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the aforesaid appeals by a common judgment.
2. FACTS
2.1 Before this Bench proceeds to discuss the evidence, produced by the respective parties, some relevant particulars, with regard to both the acquisitions, are required to be noticed.
The Ist Acquisition (For developing Sector 23):-
i) 28.02.2006- Notification U/s 4 of the 1894 Act proposing to acquire the land in the villages, namely Jandli (165.13 acres), Kanwli (50.45 acres), Saunda (33.91 acres) and Sarai Mehdood (3.86 acres) for developing a residential and commercial colony, namely Sector 23 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the HUDA) was issued.
ii) 27.02.2007 -The notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued.
iii) 03.03.2009- Award No. 4 with respect to 87.55 acres of land was announced, while offering to pay, to the landowners of village Jandali, an amount @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre, whereas the landowners of the acquired land of the villages, namely Kanwli, Saunda and Sarai Mehdood, were offered an amount @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre.
iv) 29.08.2014:- The RC, in the first round, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,950/- per square yard vide judgment dated 29.08.2014. Accordingly, the per acre price works out to Rs. 1,42,78,000/-.
v) 28.10.2016:- The date of re-decision, after remand, by the RC.
The Second Acquisition( For developing Sector 22):-
i) 20.07.2006: The notification U/s 4 of the 1894 Act was issued proposing to acquire the land of villlages- Kanwla, Kanwali, Jandli and Sarai Mehdood for developing Sector 22 by the HUDA.
ii) 19.07.2007: The declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued.
iii) 17.07.2009: The LAC vide award No. 3 dated 17.07.2009 offered to pay, to the landowners of village Jandali, an amount @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre, whereas the landowners of the acquired land of the villages, namely Kanwla, Kanwali and Sarai Mehdood were offered an amount @ Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre.
iv) 24.04.2012: In the first round, the RC assessed the market value of the acquired land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act @ Rs. 499/- per square yard, vide judgment dated 24.04.2012. Accordingly, the per acre price works out to Rs. 24,15,160/-.
v) 09.11.2016, 25.03.2019 & 16.04.2021: The date of re- decision, after remand, by the RC in different batches vide judgments dated 09.11.2016, 25.03.2019 & 16.04.2021.
2.2 While delivering the judgment on 15.10.2015 in Harinder Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana (Regular First Appeal No. 3120 of 2011), a batch of the regular first appeals with respect to the Ist and 2nd acquisition were decided and the cases were remanded back to the RC for deciding afresh after permitting the parties to lead further ev
The market value of acquired land should be assessed based on the comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period with respect to the parcels of land, either forming part of the acquired land....
The court's assessment of market value should be based on direct evidence, such as sale deeds, and should consider the comparability of the evidence presented. The court should not rely on judgments ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
