Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Roop Singh And Others on 9 July, 2009
RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM No. 7111-CI of 2007 and
RFA No.956 of 2004
Date of decision: 09.07.2009
State of Punjab and others
....Appellants
Versus
Roop Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the appellants.
Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of RFA No. 956 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Roop Singh and others and RFA Nos. 957 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others, 958 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Ramji Dass and others, 959 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Baggar Singh and others, 960 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Madan Lal and others, 961 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Dalip Singh and others, 962 RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M) -2- of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Budh Singh and others, 963 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Angrej Singh and others, 964 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Bohar Singh and others, 965 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Harjinder Singh and others, 966 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Angrej Singh and others, 967 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Bahal Singh and others, 968 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Gurdev Singh and others 969 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Bakhtaur Singh and others, 970 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Teja Singh and others, 971 of 2004 State of Punjab and others Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, 972 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 973 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Bikramjit Singh and others, 974 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Kulwant Singh and others, 975 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Zora Singh and others, 976 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Naib Singh and others and 977 of 2004 titled State of Punjab and others Vs. Sukhdev Singh and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved.
For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No. 956 of 2004.
The appellant-State has challenged the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition act.
The respondent-land owners are residents of villages Sangrana, Chauntra and Dodawali, Tehsil Muktsar, and land under their ownership was acquired for the purpose of construction of Chauntra RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M) -3- Distributory RD-0 to 39000. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 11/13 October, 1997 and on 13/14 October, 1997 itself notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, meaning thereby that urgency provisions were invoked for acquiring the land of respondent-land owners.
The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award by assessing the market value of different kinds of required land as under: -
A. Village Chauntra Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre
1. Nehri Rs.98,400/-
2. Chahi Rs.98,400/-
3. Barani Rs.62,000/-
B. Village Sangarana Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre
1. Nehri Rs.81,708/-
2. Barani Rs.50,000/-
3. Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/-
C. Village Dodanwali Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre 1. Nehri Rs.64,800/- 2. Barani Rs.50,000/- 3. Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/-
The learned Land Acquisition Collector held, that possession of the land was taken on 15.3.1971. The learned Land Acquisition Collector accordingly awarded interest @ 9% per annum from 15.3.1971 to 14.3.1972 and @ 15% per annum from 15.3.1972 till the date of pronouncement of the award dated 11.10.1999. The learned Land Acquisition Collector also proposed compensation for severance @ 25% of the market value of the acquired land assessed by him, but it was not RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M) -4- awarded, as there was no claim raised by the claimant-land owners.
The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein they claimed enhancement of market value to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lac only) per acre, besides claiming severance allowances on the plea that due to acquisition of land, their land stands bifurcated into two parts. Severance allowance claimed was @ 50% of the market value. In addition, compensation @ 25% was claimed on the plea that the tubewells installed by the land owners have gone on other part of the land rendering their part of land to be barani for want of irrigation. The interest was also claimed from 15.3.1971, i.e. the date when they were said to have been dispossessed. In addition, they sought compensation for crops, trees, super-structures, and tubewells in the acquired land. The compensation was also sought for levelling of the land, which according to land owners was got damaged due to digging of the drain.
The claims raised by the land owners was contested by the appellant-State. It was reiterated that the market value assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was just and reasonable and required no enhancement. State denied the claim of severance and other compensation claimed by the land owners. The existence of trees, tubewells and super-structures was also denied. It was also the case of the State that the compensation awarded to the land owners was as per the rate fixed in the year 1996, therefore, they were not entitled to interest from the year 1971.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned reference Court was pleased to frame the following issues: -
RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M)-5-
1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time acquisition? OPP.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced compensation, if so, at what rate? OPP.
3. Whether the unacquired lands of the petitioners have suffered from severance and whether they are entitled to any compensation for that if so, to what extent? OPP.
4. Whether there were tubewells in the acquired land of some of the petitioners who whether they are entitled to any compensation for the same? OPP.
5. Whether some of the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for their trees? If so, to what extent? OPP.
6. Whether some of the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for their trees? If so, to what extent? OPP.
The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has not addressed any arguments on the findings recorded on any of the issues, but has challenged the grant of interest from the year 1971, as also the rate of interest.
The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, is, that admittedly notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the present case was issued on 13.10.1997 and, therefore, no interest prior to the date of notification could have been granted, as the process for taking legal possession could only commence from the date when the notification under Section 6 was issued.
It is further the contention of the learned Additional Advocate RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M) -6- General, Punjab, that prior to amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, the rate of interest payable was only 6% and, therefore, the reference Court could have not granted the interest @ 9% and 15% by invoking the amended provisions of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
There is force in the contentions raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, however, the contentions raised deserve to be rejected as the interest from 15.3.1971 is not granted by the learned reference Court, but by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, in view of the fact that possession was taken on 15.3.1971, though without following due process of law.
Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under: -
"25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector - The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11."
Once there is a bar to challenge the award of compensation by the Collector, it will not be open to the State to challenge the grant of interest by way of compensation, in this regular first appeal, as the interest was granted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector and not by the reference Court.
This view finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another, 1995(2) PLR 694, as also the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madishetti Bala Ramul (D) By Lrs Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 455, wherein it has been authoritatively laid down that award made by the Collector is in the form of an offer and in no RFA No.956 of 2004 (O&M) -7- circumstances the amount awarded by the Collector can be reduced.
The compensation also includes interest awarded. Even otherwise the grant of interest in the present case from the year 1971 is justified on the principle of equity as in any case land owners were entitled to compensation for use and occupation of the land illegally taken over by the State, and the assessment of damages based on the basis of interest as per statutory provisions cannot be said to be arbitrary to call for any interference by this Court.
The second contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, also cannot be sustained, admittedly the process for acquisition was started after the amendment of Section 34, therefore, the interest awarded as per amended provisions of Section 34, cannot be said to be in any way illegal.
No ground is made out to interfere with the award. Dismissed. No costs.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 09, 2009 R.S.