Skip to content


Radhey Shyam Vs. Haryana State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 1728 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1981P& H57
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6
AppellantRadhey Shyam
RespondentHaryana State
Excerpt:
.....and well, which is involved in r. 6/a, that the cost of well and the construction raised on the acquired land amounted to rs. 6/a as well as the plan prepared by shri b. 1729 of 1979 would be entitled to the cost of construction and the well, amounting to rs. 8. the court below has accepted instance exhibit p-1 as a good one and after doing that, imposed a cut of 50 per cent on two counts, (1) for smallness of the area sold and(2) that it had more favourable situation then the acquired land. 1089 in which they had a tube-well or irrigating that small khasra number as also the remaining land on the other side of the road. 1089 has not been acquired, most of the land on the other side of the road has been acquired with the result that, due to this severance, the tube well has become..........issues framed after the framing of the original issue:--1. what was the market value of the land acquired on the date of the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894? 1-a. what is the effect of giving area of khasra nos. 1987/2 and 1089/3 under section 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act as one bigha while in the award, it is mentioned as i bigha 2 biswas was pukhta? 2. whether there were hina plants in the land acquired and if so, what was their market value? 3. to what amount of compensation, the applicants are entitled on account of cessation of their water courses and the passage from khasra no. 1089/1 to their filed comprised in khasra nos. 1146 to 1155? 4. what is the effect of the corrigendum issued on 23-8-1973?after evidence was led, vide award dated.....
Judgment:

1. This order will dispose of R. F. As Nos. 1728, 1729 and 1732 of 1979 as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings and common award given by Additional district Judge, Gurgaon.

2. The State of Haryana by notification dated 9th December, 1971 acquired 21 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land in the notified are of village Hassanpur, Tahsil Palwal, District Gurgaon, for establishing growers rest house and staff quarters. The aforesaid notification was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(herein after called the Act.). By corrigendum notification dated 23rd August, 1973, issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, the purpose of the acquisition was extended for office and market besides the originally published purposes. The claimants filed a claim in regard to land at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard and for Hina plantation at the rate of Rupees 2,000/- per acre besides claiming compensation for the buildings, wells etc. and for severance caused due to the acquistion. The land Acquistion Collector, vide award dated 24th January, 1975, awarded compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 5,480/- per acre and Rs/ 4,370/- for the well and kothas to the claimant covered by R. F. A. No. 1729 of 1979. The claim of severance was declined and nothing was awarded for Hina plantation. The claimants sought references which came up for consideration before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who on the contest of the parties, framed the following issues including the additional issues framed after the framing of the original issue:--

1. What was the market value of the land acquired on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894?

1-A. What is the effect of giving area of Khasra Nos. 1987/2 and 1089/3 under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as one Bigha while in the Award, it is mentioned as I Bigha 2 Biswas was Pukhta?

2. Whether there were Hina Plants in the land acquired and if so, what was their market value?

3. To what amount of compensation, the applicants are entitled on account of cessation of their water courses and the passage from Khasra No. 1089/1 to their filed comprised in Khasra Nos. 1146 to 1155?

4. What is the effect of the corrigendum issued on 23-8-1973?

After evidence was led, vide award dated 30-4-1979, the compensation for the land was enhanced to Rs. 11,500/- per acre; for Hina plantation compensation was awarded at the rate of Re. 1/- per square yard, no enhancement was made for the construction ad nothing awarded for severance. Still feeling dissatisfied, the claimants have come up in appeal to this Court.

3. No point has been urged before me in regard to enhancement of compensation of Hina plantation and, therefore, the award of the Court below in this regard is maintained.

4. As regards the compensation for construction and well, which is involved in R. F. A. No. 1729 of 1979 only, the claimant has proved from the evidence of Shri B. R. Verma, ex-Overseer, Faridabad Complex, who appeared as P.W. 4 coupled with the documents, Exhibits P-4 to P-6, prepared by him and his report, Exhibit P.W. 6/A, that the cost of well and the construction raised on the acquired land amounted to Rs. 8,352.14 instead of Rs. 4,490/- allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector. I have gone through the report, Exhibit P.W. 6/A as well as the plan prepared by Shri B.R. Verma, and I find that he had gone into every minor detail in assessing the value of the construction and it has not been shown by the State either in cross-examination or by producing any other evidence that it contradicts the same. Accordingly, I find that the estimate, Exhibit P.W. 6/A remains unchallenged and has to be accepted. Therefore, the claimant in R. F.A. No. 1729 of 1979 would be entitled to the cost of construction and the well, amounting to Rs. 8352.14 instead o Rupees 4,490/- as allowed by the Land Acquisition collector.

5. Coming to the market value of the acquired land, the claimants have got on record several instances which have been detailed in Para 19 of the award of the Court below. As against these, the State has produced 14 instances which have been detailed in paragraph 17 o the award of the court below.

6. In order to appreciate the instance, it will be useful to first determine whether the date of acquisition in this case will be considered as 9th of December, 1971, when originally the notification under Section 4 of the At was published or 23rd August, 1973, when notification of corrigendum under Section 4 and 6 of the Act was published. According to the learned counsel for the claimants, the date for fixing the market value would be 23rd August, 1973 ad not the earlier one where as, according to the State, it would be the earlier date. I have gone into this matter and find that the earlier date of notification would be the date for assessing the market value of the acquired lad on the facts and circumstances of this case. The court below has considered his aspect of the matter in paragraph 12 of its award and I entirely agree with the reasons given therein for coming to the conclusion that the earlier date of notification will be the date on which the market value has to be fixed. The corrigendum notification was only to add to the purpose of the acquisition and nothing more and even if the subsequent notification is ignored, the original notification would be a valid notification in the eyes of law and, therefore, that has to be treated as the date for fixing the market value of the land, If the original notification could not stand in view of the subsequent notification or would have been invalid without the subsequent notification then certainly the subsequent notification would have held the field and on that date, the compensation had to be awarded. As already observed, in the present case, the subsequent notification was issued by way of abundant caution to add to the purpose of the acquisition so that, later on, objection may not be raise if, besides rest house and staff quarters, the office building and the market were also set up.

7. In order to fix the market value on 9th December, 1971, out of the instances produced by the claimants, the instance Exhibit P-3 cannot be taken notice o as it is an instance of sale after the date of notification. The only other relevant instance would be Exhibit P-1 which is a sale deed dated 8-2-1971 in regard to 7 Biswas Pucca land (1057 square yards) out o Khasra No. 109-A for Rs. 5,200/- which comes to Rs. 23,771/- per acre. Even the Court below has taken this instance into consideration for arriving at the market value. A look a the plan, Exhibit R-1, would show that this is nearest to the acquired land. As regards the instances Exhibits P-2 ad P-7 to P-9 they are long before the date of acquisition and are away from the acquired land and are near the abadi of Hassanpur. In the award, the Court below has wrongly noticed the date of sale of Exhibits P-7 as 18-2-1971. A reading of the document on record shows that mutation of sale was entered on 12-7-1967 and was sanctioned on 21-7-1967. Therefore, it is an instance of 1967 and not of 1971.The position of the State instances 13 also shown by plan Exhibit R-1 and out of those instances several relate to pieces of land situate around the abadi of Hassanpur. Therefore, they cannot be ignored and would be relevant for fixing the market value.

8. The Court below has accepted instance Exhibit P-1 as a good one and after doing that, imposed a cut of 50 per cent on two counts, (1) for smallness of the area sold and(2) that it had more favourable situation then the acquired land. Even if the case is to be decided on the basis of instance Exhibit P-1 alone, I do not think the court below was justified in imposinga cut of 50 per cent because, on the finding recorded by it, the acquired land had the potential for being brought in use for commercial ad residential purpose and, therefore, it plots had to be carved out, some space in-between had tobe left for approach to the plots carved out on the back portion. For this matter, maximum reduction could be made at one-third and not 50 percent. As regards the situation, there is no marked distinction between the acquired land and the land covered by Exhibit P-1.Therefore, in this way the round sum after imposition of one-third cut would be Rs. 16,000/- per acre.

9. If all the instances produced by the State and the claimants are taken together, I find that the compensation would not exceed the amount of Rupees 16,000/- per acre, and on this basis also, it appears that it would be reasonable to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per acre and I order accordingly.

10. In R. F. A. No. 1732 of 1979, the question of compensation for severance is also involved. The claimants owned Khasra No. 1089 in which they had a tube-well or irrigating that small khasra number as also the remaining land on the other side of the road. While khasra No. 1089 has not been acquired, most of the land on the other side of the road has been acquired with the result that, due to this severance, the tube well has become useless because of the acquisition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimants were entitled to compensation for severance. I award compensation therefore at the rate of 5 per cent of the total compensation payable to these claimants.

11. For the reasons recorded above, all the three appeals of the claimants are allowed with proportionate costs and they would be entitled to compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per acre. Besides the above, the claimant in R.F. A. No. 1729 of 1979 would be entitled to compensation, for the construction of kothas and the wells, of Rupees 8,352.14. instead of Rs. 4,490/- as awarded by Land Acquisition Collector. Besides the above, the claimants would be entitled to 15 per cent solatium and 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of taking of possession till payment.

12. In R..A. No. 1732 of 1979, the claimants are allowed compensation account of severance at the rate of 5 per cent of the total market value for the land payable to them. On this compensation amount, 15 per cent solatium would not be payable but the claimants would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the value so calculated from the date taking possession till payment.

13. However, the aforesaid enhancement would not exceed the amounts claimed in the respective appeals on which court-fee has been paid in this court. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/- in each case.

14. Appeals allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //