State Of Haryana v. Zile Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 8.1.2016 State of Haryana through Collector, Bhiwani and another .. Appellants Vs.
Zile Singh and others ... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present:
Mr. Abhinash Jain, AAG, Haryana for the appellants in State appeals and for respondents in RFA No, 2561 to 2567 of 2003 Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents in RFA No. 1752 to 1760 of 2002 & RFA No. 2831 to 2849 of 2002 for the appellants in RFA No, 2561 to 2567 of 2003.
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES/NO
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? YES/NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? YES/NO ***** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.
This batch of 35 regular first appeals alongwith cross objections No. 27-CI to 31-CI of 2003, 33-CI- to 38-CI of 2003, 170CI- and 171-CI of 2004, out of which 28 have been filed by State of Haryana bearing RFA No. 1752 to 1760 of 2002 & RFA No. 2831 to 2849 of 2002 and 7 appeals bearing RFA No. 2561 to 2567 of 2003 have been filed by the land owners, is being decided together vide this common order, as all these appeals are arising out of the same
acquisition, raising identical questions of law and fact. However, for the sake of facility, facts are being culled out from RFA No. 1752 of 2002 ( State of Haryana and another Vs. Zile Singh and others). Brief facts of the case are that State of Haryana sought to acquire land from three villages namely Charkhi Dadri, Loharwara and Khatiwas. Land measuring 14.83 acres of village Charkhi Dadri was acquired for the public purpose, i.e. construction of Bharvi Minor. Notification dated 1.5.1997 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) was issued which was followed by notification dated 12.8.1997 under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, announced his award No. 8 dated 14.7.1998 for village Charkhi Dadri. At the instance of land owners, 19 references bearing LAC No.
281 to 299 of 1998 were forwarded to the learned reference court which were decided together by the learned reference court, vide its award dated 29.4.2002 and the State Government has filed 19 RFAs pertaining to the land acquired from village Charkhi Dadri. Similarly, land measuring 9.1. acres of village Khatiwas was acquired for construction of Loharwara Minor vide notification dated 1.5.1997 under Section 4 of the Act, which was followed by notification dated 24.6.1997 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award No.1 dated 15.4.1998 qua village Khatiwas. 9 land references bearing LAC No. 184 to 192 of 1998 were forwarded to the learned reference court, who decided all the abovesaid nine land references together, vide common award dated 16.2.2002.
pertaining to the land of village Khatiwas.
Likewise, land measuring 6.47 acres was acquired from revenue estate of village Loharwara, for the purpose of construction of Loharwara Minor. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the said purpose on 1.5.1997, followed by notification dated 24.6.1997 under Section 6 of the Act. The land Acquisition Collector, announced his award No. 37 dated 10.12.1997, pertaining to the land of village Loharwara. 9 land references bearing LAC No. 193 to 201 of 1998 were forwarded to the learned reference court, who decided the same vide common award dated 24.12.2002. Out of these 9 references decided together by the learned reference court, land owners have filed seven RFAs.
Vide abovesaid three separate awards bearing numbers 37 dated 10.12.1997 qua village Loharwara, award No. 8 dated 14.7.1998 qua village Charkhi Dadri and award No.1 dated 15.4.1998 qua village Khatiwas, Collector granted the compensation @ `1 lac per acre for Chahi/Nehri land and `80,000/- for Barani/Gair mumkin land. All the land references arising out of the abovesaid three awards were dismissed by the learned reference court, however, modifying all the three awards holding the land owners entitled for the additional amount @ 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act w.e.f. February, 1988 to the date of notification under Section 4 Act and the market value of the amount as prevalent in the year 1988, as per the Collector rate of `25,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri, `15,000/- for Barani/Gair mumkin and `10,000/- for Banjar Kadim.
State of Haryana has also challenged the correctness of the impugned award passed by the learned reference court granting interest in favour of the land owners from the date of taking of possession till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As stated by learned counsel for the State, all the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are only against granting of interest in favour of land owners from the date of possession till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, land owners have filed their appeals for enhancement of compensation.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that appeals filed by the State of Haryana are bereft of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by the landowners deserve to be partly allowed, for the following more than one reasons.
Learned counsel for the State has raised only one argument that these cases may be remanded with a direction to the land owners to file appropriate applications under Section 48 of the Act, seeking compensation for the period from taking of possession, i.e. January 1988 till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In support of his solitary argument, learned counsel for the State places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda and others, 2010
(5) SCC 708 and two orders of this Court passed in RFA No. 4609 of 2006 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Ram Kumar and others, decided on 11.5.2011) as well as in RFA No. 1643 of 1994 (Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 19.8.2015). He prays for allowing the appeals filed by the State and dismissal of the appeals filed by the land owners.
The argument raised by learned counsel for the State was vehemently refuted by learned counsel for the land owners, contending that Section 48 of the Act would not at all be attracted in this batch of appeals because acquisition was complete. He submits that once the possession had already been taken from the land owners, admittedly in the month of January, 1988, the learned reference court have rightly granted the said benefit in favour of the land owners. He further submits that since the appeals filed by the State are wholly misconceived, same are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, noticed hereinabove, the question of law that arises for consideration of this Court is, whether cases covered in the appeals filed by the State deserve to be remanded to the learned reference court in spite of the fact that the land finally stood acquired, though possession had already been taken from the land owners much earlier and whether, in such a situation, provisions of Section 48 of the Act would be attracted or not.
After giving anxious consideration to the undisputed fact
situation and following the doctrine of "Boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite oritur, et interest reipublicae ut sint fines litium", this Court is of the considered opinion that neither the provisions of Section 48 of the Act would be attracted in these cases, nor the appeals filed by the State have been found having any substance. It is so said because the fact situation in the present cases and in Karigowda's case (supra), Ram Kumar's case (supra) and Sarwan Singh's case (supra) was entirely different from each other. In the present case, it is the own set up case on behalf of the State that the possession was taken from the land owners in the month of January, 1988 and the construction work was started in the month of January, 1988 itself, however, notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 1.5.
1997 in all these cases. Acquisition stood completed. This being the undisputed and clear cut distinguishing feature, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the State are of no help to him and his solitary argument is only to be noted to be rejected, as the same has not been found worth acceptance.
The claim of the land owners to receive reasonable compensation for the period between taking over of possession and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act is also not in dispute. Section 48 of the Act which is the sole basis of the argument raised by learned counsel for the State, reads as under:-
48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.-(1) Except in the case provided for in
section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.
(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.
A bare reading of the provisions of Section 48 of the Act would show that it will operate only when the acquisition proceedings are not completed and the Government had withdrawn from the acquisition, whereas the fact situation of the cases in hand, as noticed hereinabove, is entirely different. The possession was taken in the month of January, 1988 and construction on the land was also raised in that year itself, however, the notification came to be issued after a gap of more than nine years, i.e. 1.5.1997. In fact, taking forcible possession of the land without acquiring the same would amount to clear cut highhandedness on the part of the State Government. Somebody was being deprived of his source of livelihood and was not paid even a single penny. Such kind of arbitrariness is not at all expected from the State Government, nor it behoves a Welfare State. In such a situation,
remanding these cases, as sought by learned counsel for the State, would amount to imposing another unwarranted and avoidable litigation on the land owners and that too, for none of their fault. Section 48 of the Act does not express any such legislative intent. In fact, the argument of learned counsel for the State in this regard has been found wholly misplaced.
Further, it is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundara Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533.
Taking up the appeals filed by the land owners, learned counsel for the landowners, while referring to the facts of RFA No. 2561 of 2003 ( Kartar Vs. State of Haryana), submits that in para 15 of the impugned award dated 24.12.2002, learned reference court proceeded on a misconceived approach, while not enhancing the compensation because market value of the acquired land was much more on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. He submits that the land owners duly proved the sale deeds dated 18.5.1994 (Ex.P-9), whereby land measuring 1 kanal was sold for `33,000/- which comes to ` 2,64,000/- per acre. He also submits that sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana vide Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 were post notification and the same were not worth consideration.
Similar was the position regarding sale deed Ex.R4 dated 5.8.1998. He would next contend that the only relevant sale deed proved by the State, if at all, could have been the sale deed Ex.R-5 dated 9.4.1997 vide which the Banjar Kadeem land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas was sold for ` 20,000/- @ ` 72,700/- per acre. After a careful perusal of the evidence available on record and considering the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the view that the only relevant sale deeds were Ex. P-9 dated 18.5.1994 produced by the land owners and Ex.R5 dated 9.4.1997 produced by the State. Although the land under sale deed Ex.R-5 was sold at a lesser amount than what was awarded by the Collector vide his abovesaid awards Nos.
37, 8 and 1 in all these cases and the learned reference court could not have awarded any lesser amount in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, yet this sale deed Ex.R-5 can be considered for assessing the market value. Thus, both these sale deeds produced by both the parties, i.e. Ex.P-9 produced by the landowners and Ex.R-5 produced by the State, can be considered with a view to take average thereof, because there is no better evidence available on record.
Learned counsel for both the parties are ad idem that average of both these sale deeds comes to ` 1,68, 350/- per acre. Since there was a time gap of exactly three years between sale deed Ex.P-9 dated 18.5.1994 and date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. 1.5.1997, the land owners-appellants will be entitled for an increase @ 12% per annum. Thus, for three years, it comes to
36%. 36% of `1, 68, 350/- would be `60,606/- and total comes to `2,28,956 per acre ( ` 1,68,350/-+ ` 60,606/-) which is rounded off to `2,28,960/-.
So far as benefit of interest and Section 23 (1-A) as well as Section 28 of Act granted by the learned reference court to the land owners from the date of taking of possession till notification under Section 4 of the Act is concerned, the same has been found just and appropriate in the given fact situation of the cases, which deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly.
So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the land owners for granting the severance charges is concerned, this Court is of the view that Collector has taken care of this aspect, while awarding the compensation more than the market value depicted in sale deed Ex.R-5, hence, this argument has been found without any merit and no further increase would be justified on this count. However, since the purpose of acquisition is one and the same, i.e. construction of water distributory, quality of land would be of no consequence and the land owners would be entitled for compensation at the uniform rate of `2,28,960/- per acre, for their acquired land, irrespective of its quality, from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harinderpal Singh Vs. Punjab State through the Collector, Amritsar, 1997 (3) RCR (civil) 431, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India Vs. Harinderpal Singh and others, JT 2005 (9) SC 280.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that appeals filed by the State of Haryana are liable to be dismissed, being misconceived, bereft of merit as well as without any substance and the same are dismissed. Appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners are partly allowed and they would be entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at uniform rate of `2,28,960/- per acre from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Besides this, land owners shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits available to them under the relevant provision of the Act. With the abovesaid observations made, this bunch of 35 appeals stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, however, with no orders as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ) JUDGE 8.1.2016 AK Sharma