Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gajjan Singh And Another vs Unknown on 28 September, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 1142 of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 1142 of 2004 (O&M)
Date of decision: 28.9.2010
Gajjan Singh and another
.. Appellants
v.
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. P. S. Jammu, Advocate for the land owners.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the State.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1142 to 1144, 1205 to 1208, 418 to 426 of 2004, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 18.1.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 5.35 acres, situated in village Ratta Khera, District Muktsar was acquired by the State of Punjab for construction of a drain. The same was followed by notification dated 6.2.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 10.9.1998, assessed the market value of chahi land @ ` 69,074/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,40,000/- per acre.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair. The evidence produced by the land owners on record has not been appreciated. The R.F.A. No. 1142 of 2004 [2] State, in fact, itself realised the value of land in the area, as for the acquisition carried out on 22.12.2000, the award of the Collector himself was ` 3,30,000/- per acre, whereas it was ` 69,074/- for the acquired land in the present case where the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 18.1.1996. The acquisition in the present case and carried out on 22.12.2000 was pertaining to the land of the same village. The difference in the value of land, as assessed by the Collector merely within a period of four years and three months clearly establish that the land had great future potential and the award of the Collector was not just and fair. Further there was no reason before the court below to have reduced the amount from ` 1,69,230/- per acre to ` 1,40,000/- per acre once it had come to the conclusion that after considering the increase in the value of land in the area in terms of the award of the Collector, the compensation comes out to ` 1,69,230/- per acre. He further submitted that no compensation was awarded to the land owners as with the construction of drain, they were not able to approach the other portion of land, as no bridges were provided.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the compensation, as awarded by the learned court below to the land owners in the present case was much more than what they deserved. The award pertaining to the land acquired more than 4 years later cannot be made the basis for determination of value of the land acquired earlier what to talk of increase in the value. There is no justification even for ` 1,40,000/- per acre, as has been awarded by the learned court below. It was further submitted that value of the land acquired vide notification dated 22.12.2000 was not ` 3,30,000/- per acre, but the same was ` 2,53,846/- per acre in real terms as ` 3,30,000/- per acre was inclusive of all statutory benefits and interest thereon. He further submitted that there is no question of grant of any damages on account of severance as the acquisition of land was along with passage/road already existing. The land of the land owners was not bifurcated with the acquisition as such.
No other point was raised.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out as to whether any other appeal arising out of the acquisition in question has already been decided by this court.
As far as location of the land is concerned, the value of which is required to be considered in the present set of appeals and also the land, the valuation of which was in issue in award (Ex. P34), announced by the Collector, R.F.A. No. 1142 of 2004 [3] pertained to same village, namely, Ratta Khera. Primary reliance of the land owners is on the aforesaid award. Even before the court below, the position was same. The submission was that for the land in question where the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 18.1.1996, the Collector determined the market value at ` 69,074/- per acre, whereas for the land acquired vide notification dated 22.12.2000, the award of the Collector himself was ` 2,53,846/- per acre. The learned court below on a reasonable consideration of the issue determined the figure of ` 1,69,230/- per acre mentioning that if increase @ 12% per annum is calculated thereon for a period of 4 years and 3 months, the resultant would be ` 2,53,800/- per acre. However, while awarding compensation finally, the same was reduced to ` 1,40,000/- per acre. No reason as such is forth coming for the same on record. The method, as was applied by the learned court below is not unknown to law. It has been judicially accepted as a principle that for the time gap in the two notifications, increase @ 12% per annum can be awarded. If the learned court below had calculated the same on reverse side considering that subsequent in time was the award of the Collector himself and the land pertained to the same village, I do not find any reason to deny that amount as compensation to the land owners, as it would be totally unreasonable to reduce the amount after calculating the same by adopting such formula.
For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the value of the acquired land is determined at ` 1,69,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 - Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under:
"With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions:
(i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation.R.F.A. No. 1142 of 2004 [4]
(ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account.
(iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.
(iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners."
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.9.2010 mk