Skip to content


Khan Chand Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberRegular First Appeal No. 1119 of 1990
Judge
Reported in(1993)105PLR565
ActsLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 23
AppellantKhan Chand
RespondentState of Haryana
Appellant Advocate Raman Mahajan,; Rakesh Nagpal and; Laven Khan, Advs.
Respondent Advocate H.L. Sibal, A.G. and; Gulab Singh, A.A.G.
Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can..........of the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') acquired 353 kanals 2 marlas of land situated in patti kaisteh seth, kaithal, for development of residential and commercial area in sector 19. the land acquisition collector by his award dated 16.1.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired land at rupees 40,000/- per acre. the additional district judge by his award under challenge before this court has evaluated the land at rupees 70,000/- per acre. it appears from the award of the additional district judge that the learned judge after discussing the entire evidence ultimately relied upon an award given by this court in the acquisition of village devidaspura which was situated within the municipal limits of kurukshetra. the additional district judge, it appears, was.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.C. Jain, J.

1. This Judgment of mine will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1115 to 1119, 1578 and 1762 of 1990 filed by the landowners seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation and R.F.A. Nos. 1431 to 1437 of 1991 filed by the State of Haryana praying for reduction in the amount of compensation. Since all the appeals have arisen out of common Award given by the Additional District Judge Kurukshetra, they are being disposed of together.

2. The State of Haryana in pursuance of notification dated 14th July, 1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') acquired 353 kanals 2 Marlas of land situated in Patti Kaisteh Seth, Kaithal, for development of residential and commercial area in Sector 19. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 16.1.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rupees 40,000/- per acre. The Additional District Judge by his Award under challenge before this Court has evaluated the land at Rupees 70,000/- per acre. It appears from the Award of the Additional District Judge that the learned Judge after discussing the entire evidence ultimately relied upon an Award given by this Court in the acquisition of village Devidaspura which was situated within the Municipal limits of Kurukshetra. The Additional District Judge, it appears, was conscious of the fact that the importance of Kurukshetra was more than that of Kaithal and, therefore, instead of awarding the same amount of compensation of Rs. 87,800/- per acre, he determined the market value of the acquired land in the present case at the rate of Rupees 70,000/- per acre. Since, admittedly, Devidaspura was situated in Kurukshetra whereas the acquired land is situated near Kaithal and the dates of two notifications i.e. in the present cases and in the acquisition of Devidaspura is also different, the Award by this Court in Devidaspura is, therefore, held to be irrelevant. However, the market value, in my considered opinion , can be determined in the present cases on the basis of sale deed Exhibit P.1 and oral evidence to which reference is being made in the succeeding paragraphs.

3. In the first instance, the potentialities of the land deserve to be noticed. PW.1 Khan Chand, one of the landowners, has stayed that the acquired land was situated hardly at a distance of two furlongs from the Kaithal City area. The land could be utilised for selling plots. The land, according to this witness, was near the Urban area of Kaithal City. MITC Colony, Office of Superintendent of Police and Jat School are situated near the acquired land according to him. While elaborating the situation of the land, it has further been stated by this witness that the acquired land was situated on the main road leading from Kurukshetra to Kaithal and it is in between Kurukshetra Kaithal and Kaithal to Karnal road. There were factories in the vicinity of the acquired land. Apart from this, location of the Bus Stand was stated to be at a short distance. PW.1 was categorical in his statement when he stated that the land forming part of sale deed Exhibit P.1 was situated near the land owned by him, Shanti and others. This witness stood the test of cross-examination very well. Rather, in his cross-examination it has further come that MITC Colony was developed in the year 1978 and that Jat College was situated at a distance of about three acres from the acquired land. P.W.2 Sat Pal Singh and PW. 3 Bagga Singh whose lands were also acquired made similar statements. In view of the aforementioned oral evidence, it can safely be held that the acquired land had the potentialities of being developed into residential and commercial area. In the light of the afore-mentioned oral evidence proving the potentialities of the acquired land, relevancy of sale deed Exhibit P.1 remains to be determined by this Court. Vide Exhibit P.1 land measuring one kanal was sold on 18.12.1980 bringing out the sale price per acre at the rate of Rupees 1,44,000/-. May be, the land sold vide Exhibit P.1 was situated within the Municipal limits of Kaithal, the same can still be held to be relevant in view of the fact that the acquired land was situated hardly at a distance of two furlongs from Kaithal City area. The potentialities of the acquired land has already been seen while discussing the oral evidence. However, this Court will have to apply necessary deduction in the sale price mentioned in Exhibit P.1. After giving deep consideration to the entire matter, this Court feels inclined to make a deduction of 40 per cent for evaluating the acquired land which runs into 353 kanals 2 Marlas. This Court is neither inclined to make a deduction of 50 percent nor the usual deduction of 1/3rd for two-fold reasons. Deduction of 1/3rd would not be advisable in view of the smallness of the area sold vide Exhibit P.1 which is only one Kanal. At the same time deduction of 50 per cent would be equally improper for the reason that sale deed Exhibit P.1 was executed 20 months before the issuance of the notification acquiring the land in dispute.

4. For the reasons given above, the appeals filed by the Land- owners are allowed with proportionate costs to the extent indicated above determining the market value of the acquired land at Rupees 86,400/- per acre where the State Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. The land-owners are held entitled to the grant of statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.


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