Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab And Another vs Parshotam Singh --Respondent on 1 July, 2009
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
Decided on July 01, 2009
The State of Punjab and another -- Appellants
Versus
Parshotam Singh --Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG..Punjab, for the appellants Mr.R.L.Sharma,Advocate,for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
By this order, I shall be disposing of four Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 896 of 1991 (with X-Objection No. 70-C1 of 1991), 897,898 of 1991 (with X-Objection No.64-CI of 1991) and 899 of 1991 (with X Objection No.69-CI of 1991), filed by the State of Punjab against the award of Addl.District Judge,Ropar, dated 15.11.1990 and X-objections for further enhancement of compensation filed by the claimants as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts, however, are extracted from RFA No.896 RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 2 of 1991 (State of Punjab and another vs. Parshotam Singh).
Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act), dated 16.4.1985, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, dated 02.5. 1985, land measuring 1.14 acre situated at village Malakpur, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired for the construction of S.Y.L.Canal.
The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Project, Punjab, Patiala (for short,the Collector) vide his award No. 148/R-SYL dated 21.7.1986 awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.40,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.
Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, claiming enhancement of the compensation, inter-alia, on the ground that the acquired land is Chahi with much more potential value. Ropar Thermal Plant is at a distance of two kilometers from the acquired land and it is 100 yards away from National Highway Ropar Nangal Road. Ropar City is also situated at a distance of four kilometers .The market value of the land was not less than Rs. One lac per acre at the time of its acquisition. The landowners also claimed severance charges on account of construction of SYL Canal.
The claim set up by the landowners was refuted by the State alleging that adequate compensation has already been awarded RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 3 for the acquired land. It was denied that the market value of the acquired land was Rs.One lac per acre at the time of its acquisition.
Both the parties led their respective evidence. The claimants produced Ex.P-1, a copy of previous award of village Thali, Ex.P-2 copy of judgment of learned District Judge, Ropar pertaining to village Kotla Nihang, Ex.P-3 copy of judgment relating to village Awankot. In rebuttal, the respondent produced site plan Ex. R-1 and copies of sale deeds Ex. R-2 and R-3 and also produced Nirmal Singh Patwari as RW-1.
None of the claimants stepped into the witness box in support of their claims.
The reference Court did not grant any compensation on account of severance charges. .However, the compensation was enhanced in respect of the land to the tune of Rs. One lac by taking into account the award passed by the then Addl.District Judge, Ropar in the matter of acquisition of land of the village Ahmedpur which was acquired on 06.5.1985 for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal. In the aforesaid case also, the Collector had awarded the same compensation which had been awarded in the present cases. In the said case, the reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.2,05,000/- per acre for Chahi land,@ Rs.1,16,000/- per acre for Barani land and @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land, but in the present cases, the reference Court restricted the award to Rs. One lac per acre on the ground that there is no evidence on record that the acquired land RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 4 is identically situated with that of the land of village Ahmedpur.
Aggrieved against the award of Addl.District Judge, Ropar, dated 15.11.1990, both State of Punjab as well as the claimants have come up in the appeals and cross objections respectively.
Mr.N.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the State-appellant has argued that the reference Court has erred in not appreciating the sale deeds Exs. R-1 and R-2 produced by the appellant.
I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and have found that the value arising out of the sale deeds Exs R-1 and R-2 are even less than the award of the Collector,therefore, the same have been rightly ignored Therefore, I do not find any merit in appeals filed by the appellant-State and the same are hereby dismissed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the cross objectors has contended that the compensation should have been awarded at the same rate which has been awarded in the case of land of village Ahmedpur. He has drawn attention of this Court to the decision which has been taken by the Addl.District Judge, Ropar in the acquisition of village Ahmedpur. The said decision was taken in Land ReferenceNo.47 RT/ 21.12.1988 Balbir Singh etc. Vs. The State of Punjab and another decided on 15.5.1990. Learned counsel for the cross objectors has referred to the statement of RW-1 who has stated that land of village Malakpur is better located than the land of village Ahmedpur and since the land of both the villages Malakpur and RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 5 Ahmedpur was acquired for the same purpose on the same date and at the same rate assessed by the Collector, the compensation should have been awarded by the reference Court at the same rate which has been awarded in the case of Balbir Singh etc. aforesaid.
I find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the cross objectors. The facts in the case of Balbir Singh are that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.5.1985 acquiring the land of village Ahmedpur for the construction of SYL Canal.
The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 21.7.1986 assessed the compensation @ Rs.48,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.30,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.
After appreciating the evidence of the parties, learned Addl.District Judge, Ropar found that in the case of acquisition of land of village Thali acquired for construction of SYL vide notification dated 26.11.1982, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 2,05,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.1,16,000/- per acre for Barani land. It was also found that the land of village Ahmedpur is near to village Thali, therefore, it was found that value of the land of village Ahmedpur and Thali should be the same. Although the reference Court has noticed all these facts that the land of village Ahmedpur was acquired on 6.5.1985 for the construction of SYL Canal and the Collector had awarded Rs.48,000/- per acre for Chahi RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 6 land, Rs.40,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land and in the present cases also for the acquisition of land of village Malakpur, same award has been given, yet the same compensation has not been granted only on the ground that there is no evidence on the record to show that the acquired land is identically situated with that of land of village Ahmedpur. This observation of the reference Court is palpably erroneous because witness of the respondent i.e. Nirmal Singh Patwari has specifically stated in the cross examination that village Ahmedpur adjoins the acquired land. He also stated that if one goes from Ropar to Malakpur, village Malakpur falls first and then village Ahmedpur and if this is the situation, land of village Malakpur is definitely better located than the land of village Ahmedpur whereas both the lands were acquired on the same date. Thus, in my view, the land of village Malakpur cannot be valued at a different rate than the land of village Ahmedpur. Thus, the compensation of land of village Malakpur should be Rs.2,05,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre for Barani land.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that since the claimants themselves have claimed Rs. One lac per acre as compensation in the claim petition and have also paid court fee accordingly, therefore, they cannot be awarded compensation more than what they have asked for.
In this regard, learned counsel for the cross objectors has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhimasha RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 7 vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2008 (10) SCC 797 to contend that the Court can award higher compensation subject to payment of balance Court-fee. The award of the learned reference Court has been challenged in appeal by the State of Punjab in which the claimants have filed cross objections for further enhancement of compensation categorically alleging that the objectors have been given Rs. One lac per acre for the land in question though, a sum of Rs. 2,05000/- per acre has been awarded for the land in the adjoining village which was acquired for the same purpose at the same time. In the cross objections, the respondents-cross objectors restricted their claims to a particular amount and paid the Court fee and also undertook to pay the advaloram court fee if the compensation is enhanced more than the amount claimed and if it is found that the court fee is less.
As it has been held in the earlier part of the judgment that land of village Ahmedpur and village Malakpur (present case) were acquired for the same purpose on the same day but at a different rate, omission to make appropriate claim before this Court after paying the requisite Court-fee cannot be castigated as one lacking bonafide as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bhimasha (Supra).
Thus, I am of the view that the cross objectors are entitled to the compensation awarded @ Rs.2,05,000/- per acre for chahi land and @ Rs.1,16,000/- per acre for barani land. The cross objections are thus allowed. This order, however, shall be subject to RFA No.896 of 1991 with X-Obj No.70-CI of 1991 8 payment of further court fee to be assessed by the Registry of this Court. After assessment, the Registry shall intimate the deficient amount of court fee to be payable by the appellant to his counsel, which shall be paid within two months from the date intimation is received by the counsel from this Court.
July 01,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
RR Judge
Refer to Reporter-- Yes