Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehtab Kaur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 22 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)137PLR649
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of 11 connected Letters Patent Appeal bearing Nos. 331 to 337, 355, 406 and 407 of 1987 and 541 of 1993 as all these matters arise from the common impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge, dealing with determination of market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition. As in other such cases so also in these matters, crucial issue is with regard to determination of market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, on the date, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued. With a view to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel representing the parties, it would be useful to give bare minimum facts, that need a necessary mention, in the context of determining the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition.
2. Notification dated 3.3.1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be issued intending to acquire 460 bighas 10 biswas of land situated in Village Patti Miana, Bathinda, for public purpose, namely, construction of a permanent colony of 220 KV Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his awards dated 27.3.1980 and 28.3.1980, determined market value of the land as under:-
"(I) Nehri Rs. 13,714/- per acre
(II) Chahi Rs. 40,578/- per acre
(III) Gair Mumkin abutting Rs. 57,600/- per acre
the road upto 30 Karams"
3. The land-owners considering the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, fixing the market value of the land at wholly inadequate rates, made references under Section 18 of the Act and learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 9.10.1982, determined market value of the land as under:-
"(1) Land abutting the main road upto Rs. 57,600/- per acre a depth of 30 karams (2) Remaining land irrespective of its nature Rs. 41,000/- per acre."
4. Still dis-satisfied, the claimants filed Regular First Appeal in this Court and learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.3.1987, determined the market value of the entire land at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per acre. The land-owners were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the land determined above and the amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification, i.e., 3.3.1978 to the date of award of the Land Acquisition Collector, i.e. 27.3.1980. They were also held entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 9% for the first one year from the date of their dispossession from the acquired land and at the rate of 15% per annum for the period subsequent thereto till the date of payment of the amount of compensation to them. Still dis-satisfied, the land-owners have filed present Letters Patent Appeals for further enhancement of market value as assessed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 30.3.1987.
5. During the course of trial, the claimants relied upon number of sale instances. Reference whereof, has been given by learned Additional District Judge in paragraph 6 of the judgment. When the matter came up for hearing before learned Single Judge, the claimants, however, relied upon the best sale instances, Exz.A1, AW5/A, A2 and A6. Reference whereof, has been given at page No. 4 of the judgment by learned Single Judge. They, however, did not lay much emphasis upon the sale instances and rather chose to rely upon judicial precedents for determining the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition. Out of three judicial instances relied upon by the claimant-appellants, learned Single Judge held judicial instance No. 3 recorded in RFA No. 1612 of 1982 Basant Singh etc. v. Punjab State etc., decided on 12.9.1983, as the only comparable judicial precedent for determination of market value of the land in the present case. Whereas, in RFA No. 1612 of 1982 aforesaid, market value of the land abutting on Bathinda-Barnala road upto the depth of 100 yards was assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre, price of rest of the land was assessed at Rs. 65,000/- per acre. While making comparison of the land, subject matter of acquisition in the present case, and the one culminating into the decision in RFA No. 1612 of 1982 aforesaid, learned Single Judge observed as follows:-
"However, in respect of instance No. (3), the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the rose garden established by the Municipal Committee. Bathinda is just opposite the land under the present acquisition. Sirhind Canal intervenes between the two pieces of land. While the land under present acquisition abuts Sirhind canal towards its East, the rose garden abuts Sirhind Canal towards its West. This position is borne out even from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Basant Singh's case (judicial instance No. 3) in the following words:-
"Plan Ex.A92 shows that the acquired land abuts on Sirhind Canal towards the West and beyond the Sirhind Canal is the Thermal Colony. Towards the South, the acquired land abuts on the Bhatinda-Barnala road."
Since the land under the present acquisition is adjacent to the Thermal Colony already established, and abuts Sirhind Canal on its East, it is established beyond doubt that rose garden, the land underneath which was the subject matter of judicial instance No. 3, is situate opposite this land across Sirhind Canal on the Eat. No doubt, the land of judicial instance No. 3 is on the side of the Canal beyond which Bathinda Town is located, and on the North-East of the rose garden, Bathinda Cantonment is shown to have been established but it can also not be disputed that the Thermal Plant, Fertilizer Plant and a number of other establishments have been set on the side of the Sirhind Canal towards which the land under present acquisition is located. It is by now well established that judicial instances are the best guide to determine the market value of the land acquired. No doubt, the land of judicial instance No. (3) was acquired in pursuance of a notification dated 1.4.1976 and the land under the present acquisition has been acquired vide notification dated 3.3.1978, i.e., after about two years. I am still of the considered view that the judgment as per judicial instance No. (3) is the most suitable guide to determine the market value of the land acquired."
6. Learned Single Judge further observed that there was no justification to carve out a separate belt upto a depth of 30 karams abutting the Bathinda-Joganand Road as there was no evidence that this road had any commercial importance. That being the position, the entire acquired land was held to have potential for building activity and was to be treated as uniformly for determining the market value. Learned Single Judge also observed that Bathinda-Joganand Road was only a village approach road and could not be given the same importance as Bathinda-Barnala road, the land abutting to which was constituted into a separate belt as per judicial instance No. 3 in R.F.A. No. 1612 of 1982 aforesaid. Learned Single Judge, thus, considered it proper to fix the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 65,000/- per acre, as determined for the rest of the land in judicial instance No. 3 aforesaid.
7. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants, informs us that against the judgment recorded in RFA No. 1612 of 1982, a Letters Patent Appeal was filed and Division Bench of this Court determined, the market value of the entire land at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. However, in SLP preferred by the opposite side in the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the findings of learned Single Judge with regard to belting system and held that whereas with regard to the land abutting Bathinda-Barnala Road upto a depth of 100 yards, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre is just and fair, for the rest of the land, compensation of Rs. 80,000/- per acre was awarded Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court is now reported in Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Ors. v. Balwant Singh and Ors., J.T. 1995(6) S.C. 218.
8. Contention of Mr. Sarin, on the basis of the facts, as noted above and, in particular, comparability of the land, subject matter of acquisition, and the one giving rise to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bathinda's case (supra), is that the appellants are also entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre as their land was comparable to the land, subject matter of acquisition in the case culminating into decision rendered in RFA No. 1612 of 1982 aforesaid, insofar as, it pertains to the land beyond 100 yards from Bathinda-Barnala Road. Contention of Mr. Sarin appears to be absolutely unassailable. Sufficient material has come on the record resulting into the finding given by learned Single Judge that the land beyond 100 yards from Bathinda-Barnala Road in the matter of acquisition culminating into the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is comparable to the land, subject matter of acquisition in the present case. There is no scope whatsoever to interfere with the aforesaid finding of learned Single Judge/Further, there is not even an appeal filed by the respondents challenging the finding of learned Single Judge, as mentioned above. Once, the land, subject matter of acquisition, has been held to be comparable with rest of the land, subject matter of acquisition culminating into the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee Bathinda's case (supra), market value of the land in the present case has to be assessed at Rs. 80,000/- per acre.
9. The last contention of Mr. Sarin is that there is a difference of two years in the notification that was subject matter of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Bathinda's case (supra) and of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Whereas, notification in the case aforesaid came into being on 1.4.1976, in the present case same came into being on 3.3.1978 and there should be given some increase and therefore, the appellants should be given far more compensation than the one that was assessed for the rest of the land in Municipal Committee, Bathinda's case (supra). Mr. Sarin prays for increase of 30% on the basis of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gokal v. State of Haryana, 1992 L.A.C.C. 509.
10. We have pondered over the contention raised by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants, but, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the same can be accepted only half way through. As to what exact increase in the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, should be made, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any strait jacket formula in making an increase on account of time lag between one notification and the other. The sale instance, as mentioned by learned Additional District Judge in paragraph 6 of the judgment and learned Single Judge at page No. 4 of the judgment, do reflect some increase in price on account of time lag.
11. In totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the appellants are given an increase of 15% for a period of about 23 months on account of time lag between the notification in Municipal Committee's case (supra) and the one in the case in hand. Calculated in the manner aforesaid, market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition in the present case, shall work out at Rs. 92,000/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act as were given to them by learned Single Judge but for the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as, concededly, award of the Land Acquisition Collector came into being on 27.3.1980 and the appellants were not entitled to the said benefit in view of latest Judicial precedents on that behalf of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Sarin, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, However, contends that the respondents have not filed any appeal nor challenged the benefit given to the appellants under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and, therefore, order passed by learned Single Judge on that count should not be set aside. However, we find that under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, there is ample power with the Appellate Authority to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made irrespective of the fact that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and such powers can be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. Thus, exercising the powers, under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, we set aside order of learned Single Judge insofar as, it pertains to grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the appellants. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate costs of the appeal.