- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lokeshwar Dutt v. The State Of Haryana And Another S
Opinion Summary — Rajesh Bindal, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was filed by the land owner seeking enhancement of compensation awarded for acquired land. By a notification dated 27.6.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Haryana acquired 7.27 acres in village Sukherawala, H.B No. 269, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, for construction of the Asa Khera to Sukherawala road. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000 per acre. The land owner filed objections to the Collector's award and, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the Collector's award. The land owner appealed, seeking further enhancement of compensation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector (Rs. 20,000 per acre) and upheld by the reference court should be enhanced.
- Whether the Collector's award for a nearby acquisition for Water Works (Ex. P6) and an agreement to sell (Ex. P7) are relevant and admissible evidence to determine the fair value of the acquired land in the present case.
- Whether the temporal and spatial proximity (dates of notifications and physical distance) of purported comparators affect their reliability for valuation.
Arguments of the Parties
Land Owner's Arguments
- The court below failed to consider an award made by the Collector for acquisition of land for Water Works (Ex. P6) in the vicinity, where compensation was assessed at Rs. 50,000 per acre; that award was the Collector's own determination and thus was strong evidence of value.
- The Water Works acquisition was stated to be about 1.5 kilometres from the land in question (submission in the appeal), making Ex. P6 a highly relevant comparator.
- The land owner relied on an agreement to sell dated 25.5.1989 (Ex. P7) for adjoining land showing an agreed price of Rs. 57,000 per acre; if considered, these materials would justify a much higher valuation than Rs. 20,000 per acre.
State's Arguments
- The learned court below committed no illegality in dismissing the reference; the land owner's case was one of no evidence of relevance.
- The Collector's award for Water Works relied on by the land owner related to a different village and was at a distance of 3-4 kilometres (challenging the 1.5 km claim), making it an unreliable comparator.
- The Water Works acquisition notification was published on 13.1.1989 (notification dated 6.12.1988), i.e., two years and seven months after the present case's notification (27.6.1986), so it cannot be relevant to ascertain fair value as of the earlier date.
- The agreement to sell (Ex. P7) was executed on 25.5.1989, two years and ten months after the Section 4 notification in the present case, and thus cannot be relied upon to determine fair value as of the critical date.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R.F.A No. 3008 of 2008 — Smt. Poonam v. State of Haryana and another (decided 25.2.2009) | The court commented on recurring evidentiary problems in land acquisition appeals: State/authorities (HUDA) often fail to produce documentary evidence to rebut high-value sale deeds produced by land owners; courts face difficulty determining fair value where best evidence is not placed on record. | The present court reproduced and relied on paragraphs from this earlier judgment to illustrate systemic difficulties in valuation due to evidentiary lacunae and to support its observations about the need for better evidence and site plans. The earlier judgment's observations were used to frame the court's concerns but not to change the result of the present appeal. |
| R.F.A No. 2419 of 2006 — State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh and others (decided 5.4.2010) | Similar commentary regarding evidentiary shortcomings, the importance of site plans, showing boundaries and location as of the Section 4 notification date, and the difficulty courts face in valuing land without those materials. | The court extracted relevant paragraphs to emphasize procedural and evidentiary best practices (site plans, sale deeds marked on plans, status as of the notification date). The court reiterated these concerns in the present judgment and recorded that such comments are not to be treated as directions by the court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the specific materials relied upon by the land owner and evaluated their relevance and reliability in light of timing and location factors that determine fair value assessment in land acquisition cases.
-
Assessment of Ex. P6 (Collector's award for Water Works):
- The court noted that the notification under Section 4 in the Water Works case was published on 13.1.1989 — two years and seven months after the notification in the present case dated 27.6.1986.
- The court observed conflicting distance assertions: while the land owner's counsel said the comparator site was 1½ km away, PW-1 admitted the distance was 3-4 kilometres. The court accepted that the distance was 3-4 kilometres.
- Because Ex. P6 related to a later acquisition (different temporal context) and was physically 3-4 km away, the court concluded it could not be regarded as a reliable piece of evidence for assessing the fair value of the land at the relevant date in the present case.
-
Assessment of Ex. P7 (agreement to sell dated 25.5.1989):
- The document produced was merely a copy of an entry in the register of a Deed Writer. No evidence was produced to show that a sale deed was ultimately registered based on that agreement.
- The court emphasized that the Section 4 notification in the present case was issued on 27.6.1986 (published 8.7.1986), i.e., two years and ten months before the date of Ex. P7. Therefore the alleged agreement post-dated the critical valuation date and could not be relied upon to determine fair value as of the notification date.
-
Absence of other reliable evidence:
- The court found that no other evidence relied upon by the land owner justified interference with the lower court's award.
-
Broader observations:
- The court recorded persistent difficulties in land acquisition appeals arising from lack of adequate documentary evidence, lack of site plans marking boundaries and comparators, and failure by State authorities to produce registration records even when available.
- The court extracted prior judgments to highlight recommended factual materials (notification under Section 4, copy of award, site plan to scale showing acquired boundary as at the notification date, and sale instances pointed out on the site plan) that assist in ascertaining fair value. However, the court expressly noted that such commentary should not be taken as a binding direction.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Direct effect: The court dismissed the appeal and therefore declined to enhance the compensation; the Collector's award of Rs. 20,000 per acre as upheld by the learned court below stands.
Broader implications: The court recorded and reiterated systemic concerns about recurring evidentiary deficiencies in land acquisition litigation (absence of site plans, failure to produce registration records and reliable contemporaneous comparators). It extracted and reproduced earlier judgments highlighting best practices for adducing evidence relevant to valuation. The court clarified that these observations are not to be treated as mandatory directions; no new binding precedent was established by the present decision beyond the court's application of existing evidentiary principles in dismissing this appeal.
Judge: (Rajesh Bindal). Date of judgment: 16.8.2010.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The land owner is in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 27.6.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), State of Haryana acquired land measuring 7.27 acres in village Sukherawala, H.B No. 269, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa for construction of road from Asa Khera to Sukherawala road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ‘the Collector’) awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration the award announced by the Collector itself for acquisition of land in the vicinity vide Ex. P6, whereby compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre was assessed pertaining to the acquisition of land for Water Works. The distance of the land acquired for Water Works from the land in question was merely 1-1/2 kilometer. The same was best piece of evidence considering the fact that it was the award of the Collector itself. In the present case, the award of the Collector was merely Rs. 20,000/- per acre. He further referred to and relied upon an agreement to sell dated 25.5.1989, (Ex. P7), whereby the land adjoining to the acquired land was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 57,000/- per acre. The submission was that if the aforesaid evidence, which was ignored by the learned court below is considered, the value of the acquired land deserves to be assessed at much higher price than the award of the Collector.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has not committed any illegality in dismissing the reference filed by the land owner. It was a case of no evidence. Learned counsel for the land owners in the present case merely relied upon an award of the Collector pertaining to the acquisition of land for Water Works, which was carried out in a nearby village, which is at a distance of 3-4 kilometers. He further submitted that acquisition in the case of Water Works was carried out vide notification dated 6.12.1988, published on 13.1.1989, which was two years and seven months after the acquisition in the present case. Accordingly, by no stretch of imagination, the same can be said to be a relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. He further submitted that as far as the agreement to sell, sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the land owner is concerned, even that cannot be said to be a relevant piece of evidence having been executed on 25.5.1989, i.e, two years and ten months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The submission was that with the aforesaid material on record, no case for enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out by the land owner.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
As far as reliance on award of the Collector (Ex. P6) pertaining to the acquisition of land for Water Works in village Asa Khera is concerned, the same, in my opinion, cannot be said to be a reliable piece of evidence for the reason that notification under Section 4 of the Act therein was published on 13.1.1989, i.e, two years and seven months later, than the notification in the present case, which is dated 27.6.1986 Moreover, PW-1 while appearing as a witness, himself admitted that distance between two portions of land is 3-4 kilometers. Meaning thereby under no circumstances, the same cannot be said to be an evidence worth consideration for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land.
As regards Ex. P7 dated 25.5.1989, which is stated to be an agreement to sell is concerned, the same is merely copy of the entry in the register of a Deed Writer. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the sale deed was finally registered on the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell. Even otherwise, notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 27.6.1986, which was published on 8.7.1986, i.e, two years and 10 months prior to the alleged agreement to sell. Meaning thereby even that cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land.
Besides that, no other evidence led by the land owner on record having been relied upon by the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the learned court below.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, this court is constrained to record that while dealing with appeals pertaining to land acquisition for quite some time, this court had faced difficulty in lot of cases on account of various reasons, which had even been commented upon in the earlier judgment, namely, R.F.A No. 3008 of 2008-Smt. Poonam v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 25.2.2009 and R.F.A No. 2419 of 2006-State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh and others, decided on 5.4.2010 The relevant paragraphs therefrom are extracted below:
“This court is constrained to comment upon the conduct of the State as well as HUDA for the reason that even though they had notice of the fact that the land owners had produced on record various sale deeds showing the consideration paid therein ranging from Rs. 12,00,000/- to Rs. 80,00,000/- per acre, no documentary evidence was led by the State or HUDA to rebut this evidence. In many cases, earlier HUDA had been raising hue and cry that while determining the compensation payable for the land acquired for their use and benefit, for which though they have to bear the burden of enhanced compensation, no opportunity of hearing is afforded to them. What is generally seen is that practically no evidence is led by HUDA in any of the cases before the Reference Court and similar is the position with regard to addressing arguments before the higher courts, where they follow the State. It is probably for the reason that burden of enhanced compensation is permitted to be passed on to the allottees of the plots carved out in the area acquired. The fact cannot be disputed that even though the State is the custodian of the records of registration of sale deeds. All the sale deeds, which are registered in any area acquired subsequently are available with the Registrar. In spite of the State, being in custody of the record, it is generally seen that no effort is made by the State to produce on record the best evidence before the Court. Many a times, it is seen that the officials of various departments appear as witnesses for the land owners deposing in their favour even in oral evidence.
Many a times the land owners do not produce relevant sale deeds or the site plans or do not point out the land pertaining to the sale deeds on the site plan so produced in a calculated effort or to enable the court to reach to a right conclusion. As in case the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the land owners are marked on the site plan it is quite easy for the Court to consider the relevancy thereof for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It is very difficult for the Court to determine compensation in the land acquisition cases unless there is a site plan on record showing the boundary of acquired land. The development existing on or near the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the exact location of the land/plot dealt with in various sale deeds sought to be relied upon by either of the parties in the evidence led by them, to show the fair value of the acquired land. In my opinion, the evidence led by the land owners in the present case was not at all convincing which could enable the Court to reach a fair conclusion to assess the market value of the acquired land.”
However, finding that number of cases are coming before this court, where this type of situation is being repeated on account of which the court finds it difficult to determine the fair value of the acquired land, which may result in injustice to either of the party. Not only that, in number of cases, the applications are filed by the land owners for producing additional evidence, which, in fact, should be part of the evidence to be led by the land owners/State at the very first instance. In many cases, the court, in the interest of justice, had to ask the State or the party to produce on record the site plan showing the exact location of the acquired land, sale deeds etc. to avoid injustice to either of the party. This unnecessarily delays the disposal of cases. The basic things, which should be brought on record to enable the court to determine fair value of the acquired land is the notification under Section 4 of the Act, copy of the award, site plan to the scale, showing the acquired boundary vis-a-vis its location such as its closeness to the city, village, highway, internal road with all its positive and negative factors. Another important fact is that such a plan should have the status as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the date being crucial for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It would be appropriate if the sale instances sought to be produced by the land owners or the State are pointed out on the site plan to be produced on record by either of the party. In the absence of which it is difficult to locate the same and consider its true value. The site plan, which should be taken on record, should be on butter paper or cloth, as it is seen in a number of cases that when the appeals are heard after 15-20 years, the site plans, which are quite big and may be on thin tracing paper, are torn out making it difficult for the parties to refer to the same and also for the court to consider.
The aforesaid may not be taken as a direction issued by this court as it is for the parties concerned to lead evidence in the manner they like, however, what was felt appropriate, has been pointed out by this court.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
16.8.2010 mk
(Refer to Reporter)
Alert