DARSHANA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For, the facts involved in these appeals, which have been preferred by the landowner-claimants as also the State, are similar, and the questions that arise for consideration being common, these are being decided vide a common judgment. However, for reference, the facts are culled out from Regular First Appeal No.1718 of 2002 - Darshana Devi v. State of Haryana and another.

(2.) Vide notification No.704, dated 08.02.1989, under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, [for short, 'the Act'], published on 21.02.1989, land measuring 2.58 acres, situated within the revenue estate of village Kalu Pur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, was sought to be acquired for construction of a railway over-bridge at Sonepat-Delhi Section, Crossing No.26. The declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act was made vide notification dated 14.11.1989. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat [for short, 'the Collector'] assessed the market value of the acquired land at L 4,00,000.00 per acre i.e. Rs.82.64 per sq. yard. However, being aggrieved by the assessment and the compensation awarded by the Collector, objections, under Sec. 18 of the Act, were preferred by the landowners. Resultantly, Collector referred the matter to the Court for determination. The reference court, on a consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, concluded; that the sale instances that were being relied upon by the landowner-claimants i.e. sale deed dated 03.06.1988 (Ex.P9), vide which an area measuring 133 sq. yards was sold @ L 300.00 per sq. yard, and sale deed dated 03.06.1988 (Ex.P10), whereby the site measuring 148 sq. yard was sold for the same consideration, could not be taken into consideration, being of an extremely small area. Likewise, the sale deeds, dated 10.04.1986 (Ex.R1) and 12.11.1986 (Ex.R3), relied upon by the State, vide which land measuring 200 sq. yards each was alienated @ Rs.50.00 per sq. yard, too could not be factored in. For, the sale consideration at which the said sites were sold was far less than the rate at which the compensation was assessed and awarded by the Collector himself. However, taking cognizance of the fact that the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Sonepat for many years prior to the issuance of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, was surrounded by residential colonies, Industrial and commercial establishments, the reference court concluded that the acquired land, indeed, formed part of a developed area. Resultantly, the compensation awarded to the landowners was enhanced from Rs.4,00,000.00 per acre, as awarded by the Collector, to Rs.6,00,000.00 per acre i.e. Rs.124/- per sq. yard. However, no compensation was awarded on account of severance, as no evidence was led to show that the land of any of the landowners, on account of acquisition, stood bifurcated in two parts, and lay on each side of the railway over-bridge. Likewise, claims as also the prayer for further enhancement of compensation as regard the superstructure and plantation of eucalyptus trees were also declined, for want of cogent evidence. Except, in the case of Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana - LAC No.551 of 1996/1997 [RFA-4613-2001], in which the landowners were awarded Rs.1,53,659.00 for superstructure by the Collector, but the reference court enhanced the compensation by Rs.47,000.00. Similarly, in the case of M/s Asco Industries Vs. State of Haryana - LAC No.16A of 1998 [RFA- 1721-2002] and M/s Chandra Auto Vs. State of Haryana - LAC No.16A of 1998 [RFA-1719-2002], both the companies were jointly awarded Rs.1,00,000.00 as compensation, for dismantling the machinery, removal of boundary wall, and for loss of production for a period of two months. All the statutory benefits as were admissible in law were also awarded to the landowners. That is how, both the parties, as indicated above, are before this court.

(3.) Mr. Alok Jain, learned counsel for the landowners submits that concededly the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Sonepat town, and the reference court itself concluded that it was surrounded by many residential colonies, commercial and industrial establishments, therefore, it seriously erred to still discard the two sale deeds dated 03.06.1988 (Ex.P9 & Ex.P10), being of a smaller area. For, it was almost impossible to find the sale instances of a large tract of land within the Municipal area. Further, he submits that both the sale deeds (Ex.P9 & Ex.P10) were duly proved, for even the vendees to the said sale deeds i.e. Shyam Sunder Sharma (AW1) and Jag Mohan Sharma (AW2), respectively, were examined. And, the record shows that the distance between the two sites that were sold vide these sale deeds was 400-500 yards from the acquired land. Likewise, he further submits that sale deed, dated 24.01.1986 (Mark 'X'), vide which a land measuring 200 sq. yard was purchased by none other than the appellant (Darshana Devi) herself for Rs.75,000.00 i.e. Rs.375.00 per sq. yard, was the best evidence to assess the true market value of the acquired land. But as only the photocopy of the said sale deed was produced, and the document was not exhibited, resultantly, it was not taken into consideration. He submits that the veracity of the document (Mark 'X') was never questioned by the respondents, and its execution and contents were duly proved by vendee - Darshana Devi in her statement as PW6. Therefore, it could always be read in evidence. Thus, he asserts that the market price of the acquired land ought to have been assessed @ Rs.375.00 per sq. yard. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh (dead) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2008(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 158 : 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 555 : 2008(2) SCC 568; Charan Dass (dead) by LRs v. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and others, 2009(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 45 : 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 740 : 2010(13) SCC 398; and Bama Kathari Patil Vs. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi, 2004(3) CCC 14.