9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. Although it is a matter of record that revenue estate of villages Dhankot and Budhera were adjoining with each other, yet, even if it is presumed, however, for the sake of argument only, that there is some distance between two pieces of land acquired out of the revenue estate of village Dhankot and the acquired land in the present cases, then the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others [ 2013 (4) TMI 1000 - SUPREME COURT] , Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, [ 2013 (12) TMI 1745 - SUPREME COURT] and Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer and another, [ 2001 (1) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT] clearly supports the claim of the landowners. The landowners are held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at the uniform rate of ₹ 2,80,00,000/- per acre, from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Besides this, the landowners shall be entitled for all the statutory benefits available to them under the relevant provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erences were forwarded. The learned reference court, vide its common award dated 16.11.2011, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of ₹ 41, 81,500/-per acre. Neither LAC adopted the belting system, nor it was adopted by learned reference court. Feeling aggrieved against the abovesaid impugned award dated 16.11.2011 passed by the learned reference court, only the landowners have approached this Court by way of instant set of appeals, seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation for their acquired land. That is how, all these 39 appeals are being decided together. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of these cases, all these appeals filed by the landowners deserve to be partly allowed, suitably enhancing the compensation, for the following more than one reasons. So far as location of the acquired land is concerned, it was situated on Delhi-Badli road and very close to Delhi Bor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have same potential value as the land in question. 22. There is befitting oral evidence also in support of the fact that potential value of the acquired land is very high on account of lot of development in the vicinity of the acquired land. It has come through witnesses that there exists Sultanpur lake [National Bird Park], factories, farm houses, hospitals etc. near the land in question. There is 22 feet wide rasta to the land. PW5-Ashok Kumar Patwari has brought the Akashshijra of village Budhera and deposed that Budhera village is adjoined to village Dhankot and Kherki Majra in the East. The acquired land and village Dhankot and Kherki Majra are similarly located and have similar potentiality and have similar market value. PW2 Nepal Singh Patwari has brought the Akashshijra EX.PW2/A of village Dhankot and deposed that the boundaries of village Dhankot, Budhera and Kherki Majra adjoins each other. Village Dhankot and Kherki Majra are a part of residential zone. He admitted that prices of the land have increased after these villages became a part of R-Zone (residential zone). BPTP Company has constructed residential houses in village Kherki Majra and Dhankot. Distance betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g its reply, the same is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Award dated 29.9.2012 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned reference court, pertaining to an earlier acquisition of adjoining villages, by way of notification dated 25.1.2008 under Section 4 of the Act, Aks Shazra (Annexure A-2) and site plan (Annexure A-3) are permitted to be placed on record. CM stands disposed of. Placing reliance on the abovesaid award dated 29.9.2012 (Annexure A-1) and the site plans Annexure A-2 and A-3, learned senior counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that since this judicial precedent, deciding the earlier acquisition of adjoining revenue estate, was not available to the appellants, at the time of assessing the market value of their acquired land, when the impugned award was passed by the learned reference court, they are entitled to the benefit of this award dated 29.9.2012 (Annexure A-1), for the purpose of assessing the market value of their acquired land. Learned senior counsel for the appellants-landowners has also placed reliance on notification dated 12.5.1995, whereby competent authority of State of Haryana, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r re-developed only according to the conforming use. (2) If a non-conforming use building is damaged to the extent of 50 percent or more of its re-production value by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot or any other natural calamity, it shall be allowed to be re-developed only for a conforming use. (3) After the discontinuance of projects included under Clause IX, the land shall be allowed to be redeveloped or used only for conforming use. (4) After a lapse of period fixed under clause IX (1), the land shall be allowed to be redeveloped or used only for conforming use. XI. The development to conform to sector plan and zoning plan: Except as provided in regulation Except as provided in regulation IX, no land with major land use shall be allowed to be used and developed for building purposes unless the proposed use and development is according to the details indicated in the sector plan and zoning plan or the approved colony plan in which the land is situated. xx xx xx xx XVII Relaxation of agricultural zone: In the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), contends that any increase in the value of the land on the ground of its being put to any use, which is prohibited by law or opposed to public policy, has to be neglected and ignored, while determining the market value of the acquired land. He further submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra), once the sale instances, though pertaining to small pieces of land, were available out of the revenue estate of village Budhera itself, judicial precedent pertaining to the revenue estate of village Dhankot cannot be made the basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land. After giving anxious consideration to the abovesaid respective arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar fact situation obtaining in the present case, the landowners appellants would be entitled for the benefit of judicial precedent available in the form of Annexure A-1, i.e. award dated 29.9.2012 passed by the learned reference court, which has further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the possession of the land must have been taken from the landowner. Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, to award just and fair compensation. XXX XXX XXX The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. Although in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court in Sanjay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar held that 17. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the Appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n than claimed by the applicant in his pleadings 17. Award being in this case between the dates 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and as per the Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. (Supra), the amended provisions would be applicable under which there is no restriction that award could only be upto the amount claimed by the claimant. Hence High Court order granting compensation more than what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid reasons, has no merit. 11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh (supra) and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court. In that case, the High Court had concluded that although the market price of the land was Rs 66,550/- per acre, since the appellant had only claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,500/- per acre in his pleadings, therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited to his claim. This Court, while reversing the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Social Impact Assessment study to be conducted for every acquisition of land. A somewhat similar fact situation came up for consideration of this Court in RFA No. 1956 of 2010 ( State of Haryana Vs. Hansraj and others) decided on 8.4.2016. In Hansraj's case (supra), the relevant judicial precedents were not available to the landowners, at the time of decision of their land references and benefit thereof was granted by this Court at the time of deciding first appeals like the present ones. So far as fact situation obtaining in the present case is concerned, notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 19.5.2008, whereas the earlier acquisitions for the purpose of setting up Water Works in Gurgaon, out of the revenue estate of this very village, took place vide notification dated 13.3.2006 under Section 4 of the Act, thus, there was a time gap of more than two years. Learned counsel for the State has tried to raise the argument that except only the increase for this time gap, present landowners are not entitled to place reliance on any kind of other evidence which might become available to them in the interregnum, including the abovesaid award dated 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh it is a matter of record that revenue estate of villages Dhankot and Budhera were adjoining with each other, yet, even if it is presumed, however, for the sake of argument only, that there is some distance between two pieces of land acquired out of the revenue estate of village Dhankot and the acquired land in the present cases, then the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2013 (5) SCC 527, Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (2) SCC 165 and Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer and another, AIR 2001 SC 2424 clearly supports the claim of the landowners. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and proceeding on a holistic, pragmatic and constructive approach with a view to do complete and substantial justice between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the landowners in the present set of appeals, cannot be denied the benefit of award Ex.P-14 dated 19.9.2008 passed by the LAC qua the land of adjoining village Dhankot, which was modified by the learned reference court vide its award dated 12.11.2012 and also by this Court vide its abovesaid order dated 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or all the statutory benefits available to them under the relevant provisions of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the cases in hand, it would be appropriate to issue the directions, which were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 28 of its judgment in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh and others, (2010) 11 SCC 175, and the same read as under:- (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar, who shall get in touch with all the landowners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The officers concerned shall also instruct the landowners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the landowners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the landowners. Resultantly, with the observations made above, all these appeals stand disposed of in the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
