Dismissed

Ram Mehar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2008RFA/1550/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge upheld the compensation award of the Reference Court rejecting appellants objection to reliance on specific sale deeds and finding the Tube well compensation was fair based on evidence available on record. Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal by land owners dismissed with no order as to costs; Reference Court award upheld.

Ram Mehar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶5

Date of Decision: 5.11.2008

Ghasi and others

..Appellants.

Vs.

State of Haryana and another

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Present: Mr.Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.

¶13

Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG Haryana for the respondents.

¶14

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶15

This order shall dispose of RFA Nos.196 to 213, 470 to 478, 625 to 629, 1550 and 2500 of 1992 by a common judgment as common question of law and facts are involved therein.

¶16

Land measuring 209 acres 7 kanals 15 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Bhaini Maharajpur, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak was sought to be acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the `Act') published on 14.9.1988 in the Official Gazette for the public purpose at the public expense, namely, for setting up Meham Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Meham followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 14.9.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 14.1.1989 determined the market price of the acquired land after classifying the acquired land as under :

¶17

Chahi

¶18

Rs.30,000/- per acre

¶19

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶20

-2 -

¶21

Nehri Rs.30,000/- per acre 3. Barani Rs.25,000/- per acre 4. Bhood Rs.20,000/- per acre 5. Gair Mumkin, Rs.15,000/- per acre Banjar Quadim and Jadib

¶22

While assessing the market price of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector also awarded Rs.5000/- per acre over and above the market price in respect of the land measuring 63 Kanal 6 Marlas on account of the situation of the land abutting the main road. The land owners, however, discontented with the award of the Collector claimed compensation in Objection under Section 18 of the Act Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri/Gair Mumkin land, Rs.1,25,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs.1 lac per acre for Bhur land and also compensation for the trees and tube-well. The State of Haryana strongly contested the claim of the land owners and alleged that the compensation that has been awarded by the Collector is adequate being based upon the prevailing market rate. Both the parties led evidence in which the claimants examined Ram Singh PW1, Jagdish Prashad PW2, Chander Singh PW3, Chiman Lal PW4, Kanwal Singh PW5 and Jai Bhagwan PW6 besides tendering copies of the sale deeds Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 and copy of Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1986 to Rabi 1989 Ex.P14 and closed their evidence. As against this, respondents have tendered into evidence copies of the sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, certified copies of the jamabandis Ex.R5 to Ex.R8 and copy of award Ex.R2 and closed their evidence.

¶23

After appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide his award 14.10.1991 determined the compensation of the acquired land as under :

¶24

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶25

-3 -

¶26

Sr.No. Name of the land acquired Amount awarded

¶27

1. Nehri/Chahi	Rs.35,000/- per acre
2. Barani	Rs.30,000/- per acre
3. Bhood	Rs.25,000/- per acre
4. Gair Mumkin Banjar Qadim and Jadib	Rs.18000/- per acre

¶28

Mr.Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate, learned counsel for the land owners-claimants has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has committed an error in not appreciating the sale deeds Exhibits P11 to Ex.P13 in its true perspective and has wrongly relied upon sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. It is contended by him that the sale deed Ex.P11 is dated 24.9.1985 whereas the present acquisition is of 14.9.1988. In the said sale deed, land measuring 6 Kanal 14 Marlas was sold for a sum of Rs.1,21,500/- which relates to village Meham. He further submitted that sale deed Ex.P12 dated 11.7.1986 in which the land measuring 7 Kanals 5 Marlas has been sold for Rs.48,000/- which also relates to the land of village Meham. Sale deed Ex.P13 dated 14.3.1988 pertains to the land falling within the municipal limits of village Meham. Basically, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that land of village Bhaini Maharajpur and the land under the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 are adjoining to each other or in close proximity, therefore, the Reference Court should have taken this fact into consideration while rejecting the sale deeds altogether.

¶29

On the other hand, Sh.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG Haryana, for the respondents has submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 as they pertain to same village Bhaini Maharajpur according to him sale deed Ex.R4 is dated 3.7.1987

¶30

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶31

-4 -

¶32

pertaining to the land measuring 4 Kanal 14 Marlas situated in the same village where the price of the land comes to Rs.13,617/- per acre. Vide sale deed Ex.R3, land measuring 36 Kanal 18 Marlas in village Bhaini Maharajpur was sold on 11.7.1986 for a sum of Rs.22,500/- which comes to Rs.4878/- per acre (approximately). In the sale deed Ex.R2 dated 17.5.1989 land measuring 15 Marlas situated in village Bhaini Maharajpur was sold for a sum of Rs.2000/- and the price per acre comes to Rs.21,333/(approximately). In the sale deed Ex.R1 dated 11.5.1989 land measuring 5 Kanal 7 Marlas was sold for Rs.30,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.44,860/(approximately) per acre. It was thus argued that Reference Court has committed no error in relying upon sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties.

¶34

So far as sale deed Ex.P11 is concerned, it has come on record that the distance of the sale deed from Meham to village Bhaini Maharajpur is of 15 kilometers and similar is the position of the sale deeds Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. Ex.P13 is a sale deed which falls within the municipal limits of Meham and sale deed Ex.P12 pertains to the land which is outside the municipal committee of Meham. None of the sale deeds produced by the claimants pertains to village Bhaini Maharajpur where the land has been acquired and the market value is in question in the present case. In my opinion, the sale deeds Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 are not exemplary for the purpose of determining market value of the land as the sale deeds show the market value of village Meham and not of village Bhaini Maharajpur. So far as Exhibits R1 to R4 are concerned, there is no dispute that all the above sale

¶35

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶36

-5 -

¶37

deeds pertains to village Bhaini Maharajpur and the learned Court below has found rising trend in the sale deeds, therefore, it was found that the trend is varying from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and on that basis, considering sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, the compensation has been redetermined which is as follows :

¶38

Sr.No. Name of the land acquired Amount awarded

¶39

5. Nehri/Chahi	Rs.35,000/- per acre
6. Barani	Rs.30,000/- per acre
7. Bhood	Rs.25,000/- per acre
8. Gair Mumkin Banjar Qadim and Jadib	Rs.18000/- per acre

¶40

The next argument of the counsel for the appellant is that compensation of the tube-well has not been properly awarded. In this regard, there are three cases in which compensation for tube-well has been awarded, which is tabulated as under :

¶41

Sr.No.	Khasra in which situated	No. Name of persons tube-well	Cost of Tube-well assessed and allowed.
1.	15/4	Sh.Bhagwana s/o Sh.Jas Ram, Balbir Singh Kewal Singh sons of Bhagwana	Rs.11843/-
2.	3/19/2	Sh.Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh.Harke	Rs.7,700/-
3.	2/17	Sh.Chandoo s/o Sh.Kala Chhattar s/o Sh.Kala	Rs.1,680/- __________
			Rs.21,223/- __________

¶42

Although the argument has been raised but no evidence has been led as to what was the value of the tube-well at that time when the land was acquired and how much expenses were incurred in erecting the tubewell of the land owners. Even otherwise, this aspect has been dealt with by the trial Court as under :

¶43

RFA No.196 of 1992

¶44

-6 -

¶45

“So far as the existence of three tube-wells upon the acquired land is concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.21,223/- Bhagwana son of Jas Ram has been given the compensation in the sum of Rs.11,843/- Jai Bhagwan son of Harke and another have been given compensation in the sum of Rs.7700/- and Chandu & Chhattar sons of Kala have been given compensation in the sum of Rs.1600/- for their tube-wells. This finds the fairness on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector, who allowed the amount of Rs.24,223/- in respect of the tube-wells installed on the acquired land to three different persons, as is evident from Award No.1 stated 24.1.89. As per the case of the petitioners, there were three tube-wells on the acquired land as is clear from the statement of Ram Singh PW1. There is therefore, no justification to grant any more amount of compensation to the petitioners on account of the installation of tube-wells. Moreover, the diesel engines and other fittings of the tube-wells were removed by the respective petitioners from their acquired land as is evident from the statement of Kanwal Singh PW5 and Jai Bhagwan PW6. Both these witnesses have stated that diesel Engines along with the pipes etc. are with them. Under these circumstances, no case for any further compensation on the ground of installation of tube-wells is made out in favour of the petitioners.”

¶46

I do not find any error in the approach of the learned trial Court in this regard. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, I do not find any illegality in the award of the Reference Court, therefore, the same is hereby upheld and appeals filed by the claimants being devoid of any merit,

¶47

RFA No.196 of 1992 -7 -

¶48

are dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶49

5.11.2008 Meenu

¶50

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

Ram Mehar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Mehar Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rattan Chand Vs State of Punjab

Surain Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parsin Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Budh Ram and Other Vs State of Haryana

State of Pb. Vs Daya Ram

Sumitra Devi and Others Vs Haryana State