- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Partap Singh v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates Panchkula .
Summary of the Opinion — N.K. Sodhi, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
By a notification published on December 10, 1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Haryana acquired land in village Sukhrali and other villages for development as a residential area for Sector 17 in the Urban Estate of Gurgaon. The acquired area included the holding of the claimant-appellant (Partap Singh, now deceased), amounting to 10 kanals in village Sukhrali, Tehsil & District Gurgaon.
The Collector fixed compensation for the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. 20,000 per acre and allowed statutory solatium at 15% plus interest. Dissatisfied, the landowners, including the appellant, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant claimed the market value was not less than Rs. 60 per sq. yard; the State contested that the market price could not exceed the Collector's award.
The Additional District Judge framed issues including (1) the market value at the time of publication of the Section 4 notification, (2) entitlement to enhancement for trees, and (3) relief. The Additional District Judge, after hearing evidence and considering a prior decision of this Court (Exhibit P-15), made an award dated September 26, 1984 fixing the market price of the appellant's land at Rs. 19 per sq. yard. That award was challenged in this Regular First Appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- What was the market value of the area under acquisition at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded in respect of trees, and if so, to what extent?
- Relief.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant produced certified copies of sale deeds (Exhibits P-1 to P-7) and argued that those instances of sale showed the market value on the date of notification to be not less than Rs. 60 per sq. yard; accordingly, the compensation ought to be fixed at a higher rate than Rs. 19 per sq. yard.
State's Arguments
- The State contended that, taking into account relevant factors, the market price of the acquired land could not be more than the rate allowed by the Collector.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| RFA No. 1571 of 1982 (Exhibit P-15) | Determination of the market value of land acquired under the same Section 4 notification — fixed at Rs. 19/- per sq. yard. | The court treated this decision as binding on the present reference; the Additional District Judge followed it and fixed the appellant's land at Rs. 19/- per sq. yard, a determination which this Court upheld in the present appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court heard counsel at length and reviewed the evidence on record, including the sale deeds (Exhibits P-1 to P-7) relied upon by the appellant. However, the court noted that the sale deeds relied upon in the present matter had already been considered in this Court's earlier decision in RFA No. 1571 of 1982 (placed on record as Exhibit P-15), in which the market value for land acquired through the same notification was fixed at Rs. 19 per sq. yard.
Given that the matter was "squarely covered" by the prior decision (Exhibit P-15), the court concluded that the Additional District Judge had correctly fixed the same rate and therefore had "no option" but to follow the earlier determination. Accordingly, the court found no substance in the appellant's contention that a higher rate should have been adopted on the basis of Exhibits P-1 to P-7.
While upholding the award in substance, the court applied statutory amendments: claimants were held entitled to enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% as provided by sub-section (2) of Section 23 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, and to interest in terms of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act. The court therefore modified the award to give effect to those amended statutory provisions.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is disposed of: the award of the Additional District Judge fixing the market value at Rs. 19/- per sq. yard is upheld, subject to modification to grant solatium at 30% and interest as provided by the amended provisions of the Act.
Implications:
- The appellant's challenge to increase the market value above Rs. 19/- per sq. yard was rejected because the issue was already determined by this Court in RFA No. 1571 of 1982 (Exhibit P-15).
- Claimants are entitled to enhanced solatium at 30% under sub-section (2) of Section 23 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, and to interest under the amended Section 28.
- The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. The opinion indicates that the matter was covered by an earlier decision; it does not purport to set a new precedent beyond applying that prior decision and the statutory amendments.
Order accordingly.
N.K Sodhi, J. — This Regular First Appeal had been filed by one Partap Singh (now dead) for the enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon as per his award dated September 26, 1984 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. By a notification published on December 10, 1976 under section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired a large chunk of land in village Sukhrali and son other villages for the development and utilisation of land as residential area for sector 17 in the Urban Estate of Gurgaon. This area included the holding of appellant claimant meaning 10 kanals in village Sukhrali, Tehsil & District Gurgaon. After taking into consideration the situation, the potential value and the rates supplied by the Collector of the District, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land at a uniform rate of 20,000/- per acre. The land owners were also allowed statutory solatium at the rate of 15 per cent as compulsory acquisition charges besides interest. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, the land owners claimants including the appellant herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant claimed that the market value of his land was not less than 60 per se yard and that the compensation awarded to him by the Collector was highly inadequate. The Haryana State, on the other hand, contended that keeping in view all the relevant factors the market price of the acquired land could not be more than what was allowed by the Collector. From the pleading of the parties, the learned Additional Distt. Judge framed the following issues:—
(1) What was the market value of the area under acquisition at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP.
(2) Whether the claimant is also entitled to enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded in respect of trees? If so, to what effect? OPP.
(3) Relief
3. The claimant-appellant produced on record certified copies of the sale deeds Exhibits P-1 to P-7 and on the basis of various instances of sales it was urged on his behalf that the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than Rs. 60/- per sq. yard.
4. In the case of other land owners whose land had also been acquired by the same notification and who had also sought references which were disposed of the by the Additional District Judge by his award dated August 25, 1982, an uniform rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard was fixed as market price by the court for the acquired land, he land owners did not feel satisfied with this award an filed Regular First Appeals in this Court, one of which was RFA No. 1571 of 1982. All these appeals were allowed with costs and the market value of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. yard. A certified copy of the order passed by this Court in RFA No. 1571 of 1982 was placed on the record of the present case as Exhibit P-15.
5. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon after considering the entire evidence on the record including the judgment Exhibit P-15 fixed the market price of the land of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. yard as per his award dated September 26, 1984. It is this award which has been impugned in the present appeal.
6. I have heard counsel for the parities at length, Mr. V.K Jain, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the sale deed Exhibits P-1 to P-7 the value of the land ought to be fixed at a higher rate and that the Additional District Judge erred in not accepting the rate as depicted by these instances of sale. There is no merit in this contention. The value of the land acquired through the same notification has been determined by this Court in Exhibit P-15 at Rs. 19/- per sq. yard and therefore, the court below, in my opinion, had no option but to fix the same rate which he had done. In view of the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 1571 of 1982 determining the market price of the land acquired through the same notification in which sale deeds Exhibits P-1 to P-7 had been considered, the award of the Additional District Judge following that judgment has to be upheld. The matter being squarely covered by the decision of this court in Exhibit P-15, there is no substance in this appeal. However, the claimants would be entitled to enhanced solatiuma t the rate of 30% as provided under sub Section (2) of Section 23 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984. They would also be entitled to interest in terms of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Order accordingly
Alert