K.KANNAN J - (1.) SUBJECT matter of appeals: Judgments of Courts below rendered after remand This batch of cases relates to determination of compensation by way of enhancement over compensation assessed by the reference court for acquisition of property under the Land Acquisition Act, some at the instance of the landowners, some by the State and some by HUDA. There is also Cross Objection No.23-CI of 2008 in RFA No.3280 of 2005 at the instance of the private owner. These cases have been brought for hearing after judgments recorded by the Reference Court through five different judgments. The judgments were rendered after the cases were remanded by this Court in the judgment in RFA No.5135 of 2002 titled State of Haryana Vs. Baldev Singh and others dated 08.11.2006. The remand became essential in view of the fact that earlier the awards had been passed by reference to a judgment in the award where the lead case was Gurdev Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana. The judgment in Gurdev Singh itself was a subject of remand by the Court through a judgment rendered in RFA No.1281 of 1999 by a judgment dated 27.10.2006. The parties had been granted liberty to adduce fresh evidence with reference to the potentiality of the lands and the valuation of properties of adjoining lands through various transactions of private sales. II. Adjudication; only as regards valuation of land, trees and structures not reassessed
(2.) THE cases have been decided with reference to acquisition of lands in Fatehpur, Maheshpur, Kundi and Railley. There are at least 10 villages which are stated as covered through the notifications as evidenced through the notifications issued namely, of (i) Maheshpur (ii) Kundi (iii) Railley (iv) Fatehpur (v) Railla (vi) Judian (vii) Devi Nagar (viii) Kharag Mangoli (ix) Budanpur and (x) Dhillon Dhamsu. We are principally concerned about the substantial extents of properties with reference to the first four villages mentioned above. The notifications issued under Section 4 for acquisition have been rendered on the following dates. The awards dated 30.04.2005 is with reference to acquisition of properties in Fatehpur and Maheshpur, the judgment dated 10.12.2008 is with reference to the acquisition of property in Kundi, the judgment dated 10.02.2009 is with reference to properties in Fatehpur and Railley, judgment dated 16.02.2009 is with reference to acquisition of property in Railley and the judgment dated 16.04.2002 is with reference to cases of acquisition for properties in Maheshpur. There is a common thread of reasoning in all but two cases where the compensation assessed had been @ Rs. 359/- per sq. yd. In the judgment rendered on 16.04.2002 with reference to cases in RFA No.3551 and 3582 the compensation assessed is @ Rs. 256/- per sq. yd. There are also in some cases determination of compensation also with reference to structures and trees. No argument however was made with reference to them and therefore, this will judgment will not make any modification with reference to their valuation. III. Basis of valuation-Reliance on awards, auction notices and private sales The arguments were advanced by the parties by references to private deeds of sale, auction notices of sales brought by HUDA subsequent to development of property and awards by various Courts from the year 1983 till very recently by the Reference Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court. Only in respect of villages namely Kharag Mangoli and Judian, the intial assessment made by the Reference Court for acquisition notices in the year 1983 and 1985 @ Rs. 250/- per sq. Yd has become final. In all other cases, the awards have been subject of appeals to the respective higher judicial tiers.
(3.) THE decisions brought through various awards of the High Court and the Supreme Court obtain relevance to us only in a limited way of the reasoning contained in the judgments to the extent to which they have binding precedent value and general directions given for adopting appropriate norms for determination of compensation. The finality that has obtained for acquisition notices issued in the year 1983 and 1985 have themselves lost much of their significance by the only fact that we are concerned with notifications of the years 1990 and 1995 and it will not be safe to rely on transactions which are nearly a decade old. Even with reference to the auction sales which were conducted by HUDA though they could obtain secondary relevance for noticing the price trends and to know how HUDA has valued their own properties but be it noticed that the properties had been sold in different categories after full development and the counsel appearing for the land owners themselves are circumspect about reliance on these documents, except for the limited purpose of knowing the market trends. The auction notices obtain relevance to see the maximum prices that have been fetched, for competitive bidding is a true mirror to the prevailing market conditions. There is a certain danger to applying the valuation as found in the fully developed plots by HUDA for the properties are sold in different categories such as shops, houses, commercial complexes etc. A commercial property is invariably seen as more valuable than residential property and properties housing shopping malls secure still higher prices than the other two categories. The determination of valuation will be made not to be dependent on the ultimate user of the property by the beneficiary or how the properties had been subsequently dealt with through auctions. The reference to a future user shall be brought for reckoning only to a limited purpose of examining how much of the acquired property was actually used for residential, commercial houses and how much of property had been set apart for common use for general purpose and for roads. They will also be relevant to examine the cost of development that had taken place and how they have affected the gradual increase in prices. A fairly elaborate preface is done to set a proper backdrop for consideration of valuation through the succeeding paragraphs. IV. Properties of different villages are treated equally for valuation the raison d'etre;