Allowed

M/S P.S.Jain and Company Ltd. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2013RFA/1333/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court enhanced compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. Rejecting reliance on HUDA plot rates and an old award, the Court adopted private sale averages and applied a 50% cut for large extent acquisition.

What did the court decide?

Award enhanced to Rs. 100/- per sq. yd with all statutory benefits; appeal allowed to that extent.

M/S P.S.Jain and Company Ltd. Vs State of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

RFA No.1333 of 1992

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RFA No.1333 of 1992 Date of Decision. 05.03.2013

¶5

M/s P.S. Jain and Co. Ltd.

¶6

.....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana through its Collector, Rohtak and another

¶9

.......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J.

¶18

The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for property

¶19

acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The details of notification and award are as follows:-

¶20

Date of notification u/s 4	09.05.1988
Village	Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak
Total extent acquired	16.30 acres
Purpose of acquisition	For development and utilization of land as residential and commercial, Sector-1, Rohtak.
Collector's award	Chahi, barani, gairmumkin -Rs.50/- per sq. yd.
Reference Court	No enhancement

¶21

Sale Instances*

¶22

Sr. No. Date	Value per	Located in
	acre/sq.yd/sq.ft	rough sketch
	/sq.mtr	Yes/No
By claimants.

¶23

-2-

¶24

RFA No.1333 of 1992

¶25

Sr. No.	Date Extent	Consideration	Value acre/s /sq.mt	per q.yd/sq.ft r	Located in rough sketch Yes/No
Ex.P9	9/7/85 106-2/3 sq. yd.	Rs.20,000/-	186.91 yd.	per sq.
Ex.P10	21.08.86 10M 300 sq. yd.	Rs.48,000/-	Rs.160 yd.	/- per sq.
Ex.P11	30.3.87 107.5 sq. yd.	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.93. sq. yd.	02/- per
Ex.P12 By Stat LAC. Previou	3.4.1987 75 sq. yd. e Ex.R1 to R27 all sal s award	Rs.15,000/- e deeds are be	200 sq low the	. yd. amount a	warded by the
Award Court Court	of District or High Village	Notification	u/s 4	Award of per acre	compensation
RFA 1990 ( No.657 dated 1	No.2272 of A-1 with CM 3-CI of 2008 3.08.2003) Bohar	6.11.1981		Rs.30/- pe	r sq. yd.

¶26

By State Ex.R1 to R27 all sale deeds are below the amount awarded by the LAC.

¶27

Previous award

¶28

Before the Reference Court the documents of sales as well as an award passed earlier by the Reference Court in yet another case have been brought about. The private sales that had dealt with the properties prior to Section 4 notification surely brought out higher values in the range of 93/- per sq. yd. to 200/- per sq. yd. averaging of price at 183.5 per sq. yd. The Reference Court had still retained the award passed at 50/- in view of the fact that the private sales had dealt with transactions of very small extent in the range of 75/- per sq. yd. The previous award that had been rendered in RFA No.2272 of 1990 by this Court for an acquisition of property in the same village for a notification issued in the year 1981, that was nearly 7 years earlier, had brought out a determination of compensation at 30/- per sq. yd. The reliance on this also could not have been appropriate since the determination had not been of the year of acquisition or any year in its

¶29

RFA No.1333 of 1992

¶30

-3-

¶31

proximity.

¶32

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that there are very special circumstances that would require to be noticed for assessing a higher compensation. He would point out to the fact that even at the time when the earlier notification was issued in the year 1981, this particular item of property, which was acquired from the land owners had been excluded from acquisition in view of the fact that the land owner himself had applied for utilization of this property for the purpose of establishing a school. This place had been therefore earmarked for a public purpose and by the time a fresh notification was issued in the year 1988 notwithstanding its earlier reservation for a public purpose, there had been an all-round development that had resulted in escalation of prices. If the property had been acquired about the same time when an earlier acquisition was made on 16.11.1981, there was a scope for deduction for development expenses. However, when a development had taken place all-round and the property now acquired had therefore the benefit of such development, the land owner was entitled to said benefit without subjecting the property for any cut for development charges. Learned Senior Counsel would point out to the fact that HUDA itself is offering the properties, which it had developed after an acquisition in the year 1981 at a rate in the range of 216/- to 324/- per sq. mtr depending on the categories of property. The location of the property where there had been already a lay out and the property which was subsequently acquired which is the subject of instant notification for an appraisal of whether the rates offered by HUDA could be best appreciated by reproduction of the lay out on the

¶33

RFA No.1333 of 1992

¶34

-4-

¶35

site plan itself.

¶36

The HUDA's offer for the residential plots itself had commenced on 27.05.1985 and had closed on 27.6.1985. The issue would be, therefore, whether the offer price of HUDA for development plots could be taken as the basis for determination of prices for the property acquired subsequently and this has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another 2009(15)

¶37

SCC 769 . The Supreme Court has stated in para 7 as follows:-

¶38

“we are of the view that such allotment rates of plots adopted by Development Authorities like DDA cannot form the basis for award of compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly market value has to be determined with reference to large tracts of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas the allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots in a developed lay out falling within Urbana. Secondly DDA and other statutory authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, making it difficult to

¶39

RFA No.1333 of 1992

¶40

-5-

¶41

ascertain the real market value, whereas market value determination for acquisitions is uniform and does not depend upon the economic status of the land loser. Thirdly we are concerned with market value of freehold land, whereas the allotment “rates” in the DDA Brochure refer to the initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis.”

¶42

After setting out three different factors namely of deduction for development, differential rates applied for different categories and for different classes of beneficiaries such as HIG, MIG, LIG and EWC and the fact that the properties were not always offered on freehold but on long lease cum sale, the Supreme Court concluded “in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed lay out, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold land. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant.” I am afraid, therefore, I cannot rely on the valuation as stated in the brochure setting out a range from 216/to 324/- per sq. mtr as of any relevance. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court also cautioned against taking the prices determined for acquisition long prior to the date of acquisition under consideration to be not a safe method. I will not, therefore, take the value of the property as determined in the year 1981 as the basis. The statement of law on this subject that transactions of sale or awards for a period more than 4 or 5 years would not be appropriate comes through the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel 2008(11) SCALE 637 . I may, therefore, have no benefit by the determination of price made by this Court in RFA No.2272 of 1990.

¶43

-6-

¶44

RFA No.1333 of 1992

¶45

On a conspectus of all the documents brought before me and the decisions referred to above, the best method of determination appears to be only, therefore, to take the value of the property brought through the sales but considering the fact that they were for small plots an appropriate cut to be imposed, having due regard also to the fact that the property acquired was in the extent of 6.30 acres while the sales were for small extents and therefore, there was bound to be some loss within the area acquired itself for setting apart areas like roads and other facilities. The average valuation in the sales brought through Ex.P9 to P12 would be at Rs.183.5 per sq. yd and I will apply a 50% cut on this for acquisition of property of 16.30 acres and take the value to be Rs.91.75 per sq. yd.

¶46

These transactions pertain to the year between 1985 to 1987 and considering the fact that the acquisition was in the year 1988, I will take the value of the property to be 100/- per sq. yd. The determination of compensation already rendered would, therefore, be modified and the land owners would be entitled to compensation of 100/- per sq. yd with all statutory benefits.

¶47

The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent.

¶48

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶49

March 05, 2013 Pankaj*

M/S P.S.Jain and Company Ltd. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S P.S.Jain and Company Ltd. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjinder Singh Vs Bhupinder Singh and Ors.

Lalit Garg & Ors. Vs Sweta Rani & Anr.

Rajneesh Kumar Vs Sandeep Kumar Sadana

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs Punjab Singh

Nirmal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunil Kumar & Anr. Vs Swaran Singh & Anr.