Rajesh Bindal J.@mdashThis order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
3. The acquisition in the present case was carried out for construction of New Baroda Sub Minor and I.R. Baroda Sub Minor. The land pertained
to two villages, namely, Khanpur Khurd and Baroda, falling in Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat. R.F.A. Nos. 4837 to 4843 of 2008 pertain to
village Khanpur Khurd, whereas RFA Nos. 1672 to 1682 of 2007 pertain to village Baroda.
4. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 26.3.2002, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act''), the State of
Haryana acquired land measuring 3.65 acres, situated in village Khanpur Khurd, Hadbast No. 31 and 11.32 acres, situated in village Baroda
Hadbast No. 12. The same was followed by notification dated 11.10.2002, issued u/s 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,
`the Collector'') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for barani
and gair mumkin kind of land pertaining to village Khanpur Khurd, whereas for the land pertaining to village Baroda, the Collector assessed the
market value at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for Nehri/Chahi land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for Barani/Gaur Mumkin kind of land. Feeling
dissatisfied, the land owners preferred objections. On reference, as far as land pertaining to village Khanpur Khurd is concerned, the learned court
below enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for all kinds of land, whereas in the case of land pertaining to village Baroda, the
award of the Collector was upheld. It is against the aforesaid awards that the land owners are before this Court seeking further enhancement.
5. While seeking enhancement of compensation for the land pertaining to village Khanpur Khurd, learned Counsel for the land owners submitted
that for the purpose of construction of same sub-minor, land of other village, namely, Khandrai was also acquired for which the award of the
Collector himself was Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre. Village Khandrai is adjoining the boundaries of villages Khanpur Khurd and Baroda. The Collector
without any valid reason has given different awards for the land pertaining to adjoining villages. The land owners, in fact, are entitled to at least the
same rate as was granted for acquisition of land pertaining to village Khandrai. Besides that, it is not disputed that there was no documentary
evidence led on the file to prove that the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners pertaining to the land of village Khanpur Khurd was
inadequate. He further submitted that though the acquisition of land in the present case was for construction of a minor, which necessarily divided
the land owned by the land owners into two parts, but still nothing has been awarded as damages on account of severance.
6. As far as land pertaining to village Baroda is concerned, learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed
to consider the sale deed (Ex. P1) produced on record, in terms of which the value of the land was Rs. 2,81,318/- per acre, whereas the
compensation awarded by the Collector was less. Besides this, there was no material produced on record for the purpose of assessment of
compensation or to discharge the onus to show that value of the acquired land, as assessed by the Collector, was not just and fair. He further
submitted that nothing has been awarded as damages on account of severance.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that considering the evidence produced by the land owners on record, it cannot be
said by any stretch of imagination that the land owners are entitled to any increase in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court
below. The award for acquisition of land pertaining to a different village cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of
compensation. The land owners in the present case have not produced any material on record to show that the land pertaining to two villages was
comparable in quality, location and other factors. The Collector always assesses the value of the land in the area on the basis of sale deeds
registered there, which always depend upon the value of the land in that area. The value of the land pertaining to 3-4 villages, though may be in the
neighbourhood, can be different on account of various reasons. As far as claim on account of severance is concerned, he submitted that the land
owners did not raise any claim to that effect and this issue was not even pressed before the court below and on that account, they are not entitled
to any amount of compensation.
8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
9. What can be opined from the material on record is that the land owners in the present case have failed to lead clinching evidence which could
enable the Court to reach to a conclusion that fair value of the acquired land was in terms of the claim made by them. For the purpose reliance was
sought to be placed on the oral statements of the witnesses which in my opinion is not enough as the onus to prove that the compensation as
assessed by the Collector was not adequate is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. Reference for the purpose can be
made to Para 28 of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sangunthala (Dead) through LRs. v. Special Tehsildar (L.A.) and Ors. 2010 (2)
RAJ 286.
28. It is settled that the burden of establishing/proving the market value of the lands is always on the claimants. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers
Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, , this Court held that it is the duty of the Court to determine just and fair market value. It was further held that the
claimants should produce necessary evidence on the value of land since the burden of proof is on them to establish the higher compensation
claimed. While agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd (Supra), this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector and
another etc. Vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, etc., , held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the
claimants that land was capable of fetching higher compensation. Further in the case of Kiran Tandon Vs. Allahabad Development Authority and
Another, , it was held that the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant
and he is in the position of a plaintiff.
10. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. v. State of Gujarat 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down certain
broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:
17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the
determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to
offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the
cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a
particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date
of notification u/s 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to
the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable
adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under:
Positive facts Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior
at a distance from the
road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth
(iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring
area the depressed portion
to be filled up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from
developed locality
(vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special
under acquisition disadvantageous
factors which would
deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an owner
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some
very special advantage.
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out
roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may
range between 20% and 50% of the total price.
11. In Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar v. Raghubir Singh etc. 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon''ble Supreme Court opined as
under:
6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to
be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a
City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate:
(A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at
a single uniform rate.
(B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal
procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate.
(C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other
end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which
is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town
boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt with be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be
awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest.
(D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or
city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one
point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference.
12. In Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon''ble Supreme Court opined
as under:
6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider
whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking
reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector as
well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on
the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale
transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market
value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any
special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of
assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical
assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the
evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal
human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the
acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer
and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the
court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and
reasonable.
13. In the present case, as far as land pertaining to village Khanpur Khurd is concerned, the learned court below has already enhanced the
compensation for the acquired land from Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for all kinds of land. Except relying upon
the award of the Collector pertaining to land of village Khandrai, that too on the basis of oral evidence on record, no material has been produced
on record by the land owners to justify their claim. This fact was also stated by an official of the Land Acquisition Office, but there is no site plan
on record to show the exact location of the land pertaining to village Khanpur Khurd and village Khandrai, which could enable this Court to
compare the exact location thereof and other locational advantages or disadvantages. Merely because the land was acquired for the same purpose
cannot be a ground to equate the land pertaining to two different villages at the same rate. There being no other evidence on record, in my opinion,
no case for any enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out.
14. As far as valuation of land pertaining to village Baroda is concerned, all what has been relied upon in evidence is sale deed (Ex. P1) pertaining
to 4 kanals and 11 marlas of land. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 8.7.2005 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, i.e., Rs.
2,81,318/- per acre. It is not in dispute that notification u/s 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 26.3.2002. The sale deed relied upon by
the land owners having been registered more than three years after the date of acquisition cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of
assessment of compensation for the acquired land. There being no other material on record, this Court has no option but to uphold the award of
the learned court below as far as compensation for the acquired land is concerned.
15. Nothing can be awarded on account of severance as no such claim was either made before the Collector or the learned court below.
16. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.