2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Sahab Ram (deceased) through LRs and others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana and another – Respondent
RFA No. 2263 of 1997
For the Appellants/Petitioners: L.N. Verma
For the Respondents: Abhinash Jain
Compensation for land acquisition can be enhanced based on principles of equitable treatment among landowners and established precedents, even if specific pleadings are lacking.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 54 - Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for acquired land - Market value determined by Reference Court upheld as no ground established for reassessment based on sale instance from different revenue estate - Entitlement to additional amount of 12% interest per annum for specific duration recognized due to earlier possession taken by the State; matter treated under the beneficial legislation principles of the 1894 Act. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
(B) Appeals - Modification of award - Appeal disposed off granting additional interest on taken possession of land prior to award without actionable pleadings, recognizing parity among landowners in similar proceedings. (Paras 8, 9)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquisition process and market value assessment. (Para 2 , 3) |
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
The appellants-landowners, by instituting the present appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “1894 Act”), are seeking modification of the award dated 19.07.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”) praying for further enhancement of compensation amount.
FACTS [2] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Haryana Govt. Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act issued on 15.02.1991, followed by Notification dated 06.09.1991 under Section 6 thereof, , the land measuring 62 kanal, including the land of appellants, situated in the revenue estates of Village Bhadra, Tehsil & District Sirsa was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition of land was stated to be “construction of a new parallel Mammerkhera Distributory from RD No. 19400-52000”. The Land Acquisition Collector (for brevity “LAC”), vide Award No. 5, dated 01.09.1993, assessed the market value of acquired land @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for Nehri as well as Chahi land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land alongwith other statutory benefits.
[3] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons filed objections under Section 18 of 1894 Act, which were decided vide award dated 19.07.1997 by the Reference Court, whereby market value of the acquired land was enhanced/assessed @ Rs. 64,320/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land; besides the landowners of LA Case No. 49 (new No. 26-LA) were held entitled to the additional amount @ 12@ per annum from 27.12.1985 i.e. the date of taking over of possession till the date of award i.e. 01.09.1993, on the market value i.e. Rs. 64,320/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land alongwith all statutory benefits provided under the 1894 Act.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-LANDOWNERS [4] Impugning the aforementioned award dated 19.07.1997, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having not relied upon the sale instance dated 08.05.1992 (Ex. P-7) whereby 8 kanals and 13½ marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,26,437/- and the market value of the land per acre was Rs. 1,16,599/. He thus submits that after applying doctrine of de- escalation, the market value of the acquired land was to be re- assessed by granting appropriate enhancement in favour of appellants-landowners. He also points out that the learned Reference Court went wrong while denying the claim of additional amount of 12% interest per annum from the date of taking over of the possession till the date of award in favour of appellants-landowners merely for the reason that there were no such pleadings made in the reference petition and thus, prays that the impugned award is liable to be modified.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS-STATE OF HARYANA [5] On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the sale instance dated 08.05.1992 (Ex. P-7) was relating to the revenue estate of Village Jhorar Rohi, whereas the land under acquisition was of Village Bhadra, Tehsil & District Sirsa. He submits that in the absence of there being any evidence on record with respect to location of land, the said instance was righty discarded by the Reference Court. He also submits that in the absence of there being any specific demand in their reference petition, the appellants were righty declined the additional benefit of 12% as awarded in case of other landowners, thus, the impugned award warrants no interference.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING [6] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book / records, I find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellants-landowners.
[7] In the humble opinion of this Court, sale instance dated 08.05.1992 (Ex. P-7) relates to the different revenue estate of Village Jhorar Rohi and thus, cannot be taken into consideration as t