Vivek Singh Thakur, J
1. Appellant-Northern Railway is beneficiary of the acquisition of land in present cases. There are two sets of appeals.
2. In first set of appeals land situated in Village Churadu in District Una has been acquired for construction of Nangal-Una-Talwara Railway Line.
Process for acquisition of some land was initiated in the year 1998 vide notification dated 21.3.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (herein after referred to be as “the Act†in short), whereas another land was acquired by issuing notification dated 1.12.2000 under
Section 4 of the Act in the same village for the same purpose.
3. In the acquisition proceedings carried out in pursuance to notification dated 21.3.1998, Land Acquisition Collector, vide award No. 12, had
determined the value of land on the basis of its classification ranging from Rs.525/- per Kanal to Rs.18,515/- per Kanal.
4. Land owners, for enhancement of the aforesaid rate determined by Land Acquisition Collector, had preferred Reference Petitions under Section 18
of the Act, which were decided by learned Additional District Judge, Una (herein after referred to as the Reference Court in short) vide impugned
award dated 16.12.2001, determining the uniform value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.350/- per square meter, irrespective of classification and
category of acquired land.
5. Being aggrieved by the award dated 16.12.2011 passed by Reference Court, beneficiary Northern Railways has preferred first set of appeals
bearing RFA Nos. 199 of 2013, titled as General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Mela Ram and Another, 200 of 2013; General Manager, Northern
Railway Vs. Kartara (since deceased) through his LRs & Another; 201 of 2013, General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Ram Lal and Another; 202
of 2013 General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Julfi Ram (since RFA No. 199 of 2013 and connected matters. deceased) through LRs. & Another;
203 of 2013 General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Pritam Chand and Another; 204 of 2013 General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Madan Lal &
others; 205 of 2013 General Manager, Northern Railway Vs.Kashmiri Lal & others and 206 of 2013 General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Madan
Lal & others, wherein except in two appeals i.e. RFA Nos. 200 and 202 of 2013, land owners have also preferred cross-objections bearing Cross-
Objection No. 4013 of 2013 in RFA No. 199 of 2013; Cross-Objection No. 4012 of 2013 in RFA No. 201 of 2013; Cross-Objection No. 4015 of 2013
in RFA No. 203 of 2013; Cross-Objection No. 4016 of 2013 in RFA No. 204 of 2013; Cross-Objection No. 4021 of 2013 in RFA No. 205 of 2013;
and Cross-Objection No. 4014 of 2013 in RFA No. 206 of 2013. All these appeals along with cross-objections are being decided vide this common
judgment, as common question of facts and law involved therein are to be adjudicated on the basis of common evidence led by the parties in one lead
case before the Reference Court.
6. In second set of appeals, beneficiary Northern Railways, acquisition of land was carried out in pursuance to the notification dated 1.12.2000 issued
under Section 4 of the Act for the same purpose in the same village, wherein Land Acquisition Collector vide award No. 4 of 2001-2002 had
determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its classification ranging from Rs.990.25 per Kanal to Rs.34,923.16 per Kanal.
7. Aforesaid award No. 4, passed by Land Acquisition Collector, was assailed by the land owners for enhancement of value of acquired land by
preferring Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act, which were decided by learned District Judge, Una (hereinafter referred to as the
Reference Court) vide common impugned award dated 25.6.2011, determining the value of acquired land at uniform rate of Rs.350/- per square
meter, irrespective of its nature and classification.
8. Appellant-Northern Railway has assailed the aforesaid award dated on 25.6.2011 passed by Reference Court by filing appeals bearing RFA Nos.
298 of 2012, titled as Northern Railway Vs. Avtar Singh and others; 299 of 2012, Northern Railway Vs. Mela Ram & others; 300 of 2012, titled as
Northern Railway Vs. Sat Pal; 301 of 2012, titled as Northern Railway Vs. Sukh Ram and Another; 304 of 2012, titled as Northern Railway Vs.
Madan Lal and others; 653 of 2012, titled as General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Bimla Devi and others; and 245 of 2015, titled as General
Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Sat Pal and Another. In these appeals land owners except in RFA No. 301 of 2012, have also preferred cross-
objections bearing No. 847 of 2012 in RFA No. 299 of 2012; 682 of 2012 in RFA No. 298 of 2012; 683 of 2012 in RFA No. 300 of 2012; 684 of 2012
in RFA No. 304 of 2012; 374 of 2013 in RFA No. 653 of 2012; and 47 of 2017 in RFA No. 245 of 2015.
9. Value of land determined/to be determined in RFA No. 199 of 2013, an appeal arising out of an acquisition process carried out in same village for
the same purpose, earlier to the cases involved in RFA No. 299 of 2012 and other connected appeals will have bearing on the value of land to be
determined in subsequent cases. Therefore, assessment of evaluation of evidence in RFA No. 199 of 2013 along with connected appeals and cross-
objections therein is being undertaken firstly.
10. Highest value of the land determined by Land Acquisition Collector was Rs.18,515/- per kanal, which comes to approximately Rs.36.60 per square
meter. It is also settled law that Reference Court cannot award compensation less than the value of land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector
{see (2010) 1 SCC 444 Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and another) and also that where land is acquired for one and the same purpose,
in the same village like for construction of Railway Line or road, then irrespective of its nature and classification uniform value of compensation is to
be awarded to the land owners and, therefore, value of land to be determined by the Reference Court in such cases cannot be less than the highest
value of the land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.
11. Land owners besides the oral evidence have placed on record copies of jamabandies of the land Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-8, which are not relevant for
determining the value of land, as the jamabandies do not have any reference of value of land. In addition thereto, reliance by land owners has also
been placed on sale deeds Ex. P -9 and P-10, wherein value of land comes to be approximately Rs.35/- per square meter, which is again less than the
highest value of land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, these sale deeds become irrelevant for the purpose of determination of
value of land. Document Ex. P-11 has been relied upon by referring it as a sale deed, whereas it is a mortgage deed, which is also of no help for
determining the value of land in question.
12. Land owners have also relied upon award dated 31.3.2011 (Ex. PB) passed by Reference Court in LAC Petition No. 1 of 03/RBT 44/05/03, titled
Rajinder Singh and others Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railway) and others, pertaining to adjoining village Dilwan, with respect to acquisition
of land for the same purpose vide notification dated 21.3.1998 issued under Section 4 of the Act, wherein value of land in the said village has been
determined at the rate of Rs.700/- per square meter, irrespective of classification of land under acquisition.
13. Reliance has also been put by the land owners upon award dated 25.6.2011 (Ex. PC), passed in Land Reference Petition No. 24 of 2009, titled as
Mela Ram s. The Land Acquisition Collector (Railways) and Another, by Reference Court, pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose in
the same village Churudu, but vide notification dated 1.12.2000, wherein value of land has been determined at the rate of Rs.350/- per square meters,
irrespective of classification of land. Award Ex. PC has not only been assailed by the beneficiary Northern Railway, but land owners have also
preferred cross-objections against it, which are also pending adjudication along with these appeals, in second set of appeals. Therefore, this award
(Ex. PC) has not attained finality and cannot be relied upon for determining the value of acquired land.
14. Land owners have also relied upon document Ex. PA, i.e. map of villages indicating that village Churudu is adjacent to village Dilwan, so as to put
reliance upon award dated 31.3.2011 (Ex. PB) for determining the value of land in present case, situated in village Churudu.
15. Appellant Northern Railway has relied upon sale deeds Ex. R1 to R8. Sale deeds Ex. R1, R2, R3, R7 and R8 are not only of a period beyond one
year prior to date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but also give the value of land lower than the highest rate of land determined by the Land
Acquisition Collector. Therefore, these sale deeds cannot be relied upon for determining the value of land in question.
16. Sale deeds, relied upon by appellant-Northern Railway Ex.R4, R5 and R6, no doubt pertain to a period within one year prior to the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act, but these sale deeds are also not of any use for the purpose of determining the value of land in question, as
these sale deeds again give value of the land lower than the highest rate determined by the Land Acquisition Collector.
17. Appellant-Northern Railway has also relied upon award dated 25.6.2011 (Ex. R-9) passed by same Reference Court, pertaining to village Dilwan
with respect to acquisition of land for construction of Railway Line, initiated vide notification dated 21.3.1998, wherein value of land has been
determined by the Reference Court at uniform rate of Rs.270/- per square meter, irrespective of its nature and classification.
18. Land owners have relied upon the judgments passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court, Delhi High Court and Apex Court in cases Zora Singh
Vs. Union of India 1987 SLJ, 847 (P&H); Sita Ram Vs. Union of India 1999(2) LACC 606 (Delhi); and Union of India Vs. Bal Ram & Another AIR
2004 SC 3981.
19. In Sita Ram’s case decided by Delhi High Court and Bal Ram’s case decided by the Supreme Court, it has been held that land situated in
adjacent village, adjoining to the land acquired for the same purpose vide same notification deserves to be evaluated identically where there is no basic
difference in the matter of potentiality of land and situation of villages of which lands are under acquisition. Similar principle was propounded in Zora
Singh’s case by Punjab and Haryana High Court.
20. Learned counsel for the Northern Railway has put reliance on judgment in case titled as Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2017
SCC OnLine SC 1262, wherein it is held that award passed in different cases cannot be applied ipso facto to another case, where facts and evidence
are different and those awards are though relevant, but their applicability has to depend upon on the evidence adduced in the case and to base
determination of compensation on a previous award/judgment, the evidence considered in the previous judgment/award and its applicability in
subsequent case, on judicial parameters, has to be necessarily gone into, otherwise gross injustice may be caused to any of the parties and further
previous award/judgment being not inter-parties cannot be followed, and in case land is not similar in nature in all respects, and also in absence of
evidence of similarity of nature and potentiality, such award can be rejected like the cases of comparative exemplars as sale deeds are at par for
evidentiary value with such awards of the Court for the reason that Courts, to ultimately determine the value of the property, base their conclusion on
such transaction only. Previous judgment/award be relevant, if they relate to similar situated properties and contain determinations of value on dates
fairly proximate to the relevant date in a case.
21. The ratio of law laid down in aforesaid judgments is undisputed, but the judgments are to be applied on the facts of the case.
22. It is undisputed that Village Churudu is adjoining to Village Dilwan and in both villages, land has been acquired for construction of Railway Line
vide even dated notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, but by issuing different notifications and by carrying different proceedings for
acquisition of land, based upon independent evidence therein.
23. On record there are two awards Ex. PB and R9, pertaining to the same village with respect to acquisition of land initiated by one and the same
notification. In Ex. R9, value of land has been determined at the rate of Rs.250/- per square meter, whereas value of land in Ex. PB has been
determined at the rate of Rs.700/- per square meters. The award Ex. R9 is subsequent to award Ex. PB, as Ex. PB has been decided on 31.3.2011,
whereas Ex. R9 has been decided on 25.6.2011. Applying the settled law of the land, Reference Court at the time of deciding subsequent award dated
25.6.2011 should have taken into consideration the previous award dated 31.3.2011 pertaining to the same village regarding acquisition of land for one
and the same purpose vide common notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Now considering the value determined in these awards, I am of the
opinion that value of land determined by the Reference Court beneficial to the land owners has to be taken into consideration, therefore, instead of
award Ex. R9, award Ex. PB is the only document available for determining the value of the land.
24. In Ex. PB, value of land acquired in Village Dilwan has been determined at the rate of Rs.700/- per square meter. Undisputedly, village Dilwan is
adjoining to village Churudu. But either in oral evidence or by producing documentary evidence, nothing has been brought on record with respect to
similarity of nature and potentiality of land of village Churudu and village Dilwan. In case by applying the said principle, if 20% deduction is made in
the value of land of Rs.700/- per square meter, the value of land in Village Chururu becomes Rs.560/- per square meter. At this stage, it is relevant to
refer the value of land claimed in cross-objections preferred by the land owners wherein they have prayed for Rs. 550/- per square meter, instead of
Rs.350/- per square meter.
25. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be just and fair to determine the value of acquired land in
question at the rate of Rs.550/- per square meter and accordingly land owners in present appeals are held entitled for compensation at the rate of
Rs.550/- per square meter along with statutory interest.
RFA Nos. 299, 298, 300, 301, 304, 653 of 2012, 245 of 2015 along with Cross Objections No. 847, 682, 683, 684 of 2012, 374 of 2013
and 47 of 2017.
26. Land in question in these appeals, situated in village Churudu, has been acquired vide notification dated 1.12.2000 issued under Section 4 of the
Act. In these appeals, some of land owners are also common to the first set of appeals i.e. RFA No. 199 of 2013 and other connected appeals,
wherein value of land acquired in the year 1998 has been determined at the rate of Rs.550/- per square meter.
27. Reference Court in these cases pertaining to second set of appeals has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.350/- per square meter. Value of
land in the same village in the year 1998 has been determined at the rate of Rs.550/- per square meter. Undisputedly there is nothing on record to
establish that value of land in the area was decreased by passage of time, rather in absence of negative evidence, it is to be presumed that value of
land has increased and, therefore, value of land in the year 2000 would definitely be higher than the value of land in the year 1998. But in this case
also land owners have claimed value of land by filing cross-objections, at the rate of Rs.550/- per square meter, which is equivalent to the value of
land determined in the year 1998. Therefore, evidence led by the parties in these appeals is not necessary to be discussed. In these facts and
circumstances, land owners in these appeals are also held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.550/- per square meter.
28 It is made clear that land owners in RFA Nos. 200 and 202 of 2013, and also in RFA No. 301 of 2012, have not filed cross-objections and
accordingly, no court fee has been paid by them for enhanced compensation. Exercising the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil
Procedure, the value of land determined by this Court is also made applicable in their cases, but subject to payment of Court fee within two months
from today, failing which their right to claim the enhanced compensation shall be forfeited by deeming that they are satisfied with the compensation of
land determined at the rate of Rs.350/- per square meter. This order is being passed particularly in view of ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in
Narendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2017) SCC 426, wherein it had been held as under:-
6. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as
under:
“28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. -
(1) Wherein an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the
Collector under Section II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are
also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written
application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may
be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:â€
7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be
allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same notification.
8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those land owners who are agriculturist in most
of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially
determined, which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the
aforesaid provision is incorporated by the Legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind, the mere fact that the compensation which was
claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a
ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict
rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in
mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not
their voluntary act to sell of their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which
is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the
persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial
scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court etc. In order to ensure that the land owners are given proper
compensation, the Act provides for ‘fair compensation’. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all land owners whose land was
taken away by the same Notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also
amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High
Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.
9. No doubt the judicial system that prevails is based on adversarial form of adjudication. At the same time, recognizing the demerits and limitations of
adversarial litigation, elements of social context adjudication are brought into the decision making process, particularly, when it comes to administering
justice to the marginalized section of the society.â€
29. In the light of aforesaid discussion, appeals are dismissed and cross-objections are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.
