Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State And Ors. on 1 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR2006P&H156, (2006)144PLR264, AIR 2006 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 156, 2006 A I H C 3006, (2006) 3 PUN LR 264, 2007 HRR 2 44, (2006) 3 RECCIVR 350, (2006) 2 LANDLR 326, (2006) 2 LACC 3, (2006) 3 ICC 70
ORDER M.M. Kumar, J.
1. The instant petition is directed against order dated 30-7-1984, passed by the learned Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The claim of the petitioners with regard to payment of enhanced compensation has been declined on the ground that reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') claiming higher compensation had not been made with respect to the entire 1/5th share of the land measuring 4 acres 4 Kanals and 19 (Marias). It has been held that in fact reference has been made only in respect of land measuring 2 Kanals 9 Marias - the share of the petitioners Manjit Singh and Amarjit Singh sons of Assa Singh in 1/5 share of the total land. It has, therefore, been concluded that no reference has been made in respect of the share in 1/5th share of the total land pertaining to their four sisters, namely, Mohinder Kaur, Gurdeep Kaur, Pritam Kaur and Guddi alias Gurmeet Kaur. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19-1-1977. The Collector announced the award on 29-3-1977. Compensation in respect of the 1 /5th share of land of Assa Singh i.e. father of the petitioners to the extent of 7 Kanals 7-4/5 Marias, which included the share of four sisters, namely, Mohinder Kaur, Gurdeep Kaur, Pritam Kaur and Guddi alias Gurmeet Kaur, was given to the petitioners. Thereafter, an application under Section 18 of the Act was filed by the petitioners for enhancement of compensation. The application bearing Land Acquisition Act No. 283 was instituted on 27-7-1978, which is Annexure P-1 with C.M. No. 7183-CII of 2004. In Para 4 of the application, the following averments have been made:
4. That according to the revenue record the land stands in the name of applicant and Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Pritam Kaur, Gurdip Kaur, Guddi daughters of Assa Singh, but subsequently the mutation has been sanctioned in the name of the applicants only in the presence of the above-stated daughters of Assa Singh so now the applicants are the only persons entitled to the compensation of the acquired land.
3. In reply to Para 4 of the application, the factum of share of the sisters has not been disputed by the respondents and the same reads as under:
4. That para No. 4 is wrong. The Land Acquisition Collector has taken into consideration the provisions as given in Sections 23-24 of the Land Acquisition Act while assessing the value of the land and the compensation has been assessed correctly as per law.
4. The reference was answered by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 30-11-1979 (P-3). The reference of the petitioners has been allocated No. 283 of 1978, which has been dealt with in para Nos. 27 and 28 and the same reads as under:
27. According to Section 25 of the Act, when the applicant has made a claim for compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed before the Collector. Sub-section (2) creates a bar to the filing of objections seeking a reference to the Court in case the applicant has refused to make the claim before the Collector or has omitted to do so without sufficient reason. It will appear that the service of the notice contemplated by Section 9 of the Act is an essential pre-requisite to create the bar laid down under Section 25. There is no evidence in this case at all if notice in question were issued to the land-owners. The onus to prove service of notice lies upon the State vide Sushila Devi v. State of Bihar . Accordingly, there is no bar to the land-owners filing the objections for enhancement. These issues are also held against the respondents-State.
28. The result is that I fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 666/- (Rupees six hundred sixty six) per marla. The applicants shall be entitled to solatium at 15% besides interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession till realisation and costs of these proceedings.
5. It is, thus, obvious that in respect of the land for which reference was sought, enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 666/- per marla has been awarded along with solatium @ 15% besides interest @ 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till realisation and costs of the proceedings. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioners have also placed on record a copy of the Judgment and decree dated 12-1-1972 (P-4) in their favour on the basis of the statement suffered by their sisters, namely, Mohinder Kaur, Gurdeep Kaur, Pritam Kaur and Guddi alias Gurmeet Kaur.
6. On the basis of the aforementioned enhancement of compensation, an execution application was filed before the Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The learned Executing Court has partially allowed the execution application by confining the same to land measuring 2 Kanals 9 Marias assessing the share of two brothers and by excluding the share of four sisters. The operative part of the order reads as under:
...In the instant case, Manjit Singh and Amarjit Singh sons of Assa Singh had claimed reference with regard to 1/5th share of land measuring 4 acres 4 kanals 19 marlas. But reference was made only with regard to land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas i.e. 1/15th share touching them alone. No reference was made respecting the other 2/ 15th share of land measuring 4 acres 4 kanals 19 marlas pertaining to their sisters named Mohinder Kaur, Gurdeep Kaur, Pritam Kaur, Guddi alias Gurmeet Kaur and, therefore, the enhancement ordered by the ld. Addl. District Judge, Sh. H. S. Bakhshi will operate only with regard to land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas. In the annexure appended to his judgment delivered in Land Acquisition Reference No. 265 of 1978 Kashmir Singh etc. v. Punjab State etc., Land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas belonging to Manjit Singh and Amarjit Singh is shown to have been acquired. The executing Court cannot possibly go behind the decree. It has to execute the decree as it stands. Enhanced amount of compensation as the decree stands will operate only with regard to land measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas.
7. In this view of the matter, this execution application fails and is dismissed and so also the application moved by Manjit Singh and Amarjit Singh Under Section 151 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act moved on 30-11-1982.
7. When the matter came up for consideration on 18-1 -2006 it was pointed out that there was no material brought on record to show that the petitioners were entitled to the share of their sisters as well or that they had obtained the payment of compensation in respect of the share of their sisters also as per the award announced by the Collector. The aforementioned order dated 18-1-2006, reads as under:
During the course of arguments, it has been pointed out by learned State counsel that before the Executing Court or before the Reference Court, no document has been placed on record showing that the petitioners are entitled to the share of their sisters namely Gurdip Kaur, Pritam Kaur and Gurmit Kaur @ Guddi, It has also not been brought on record that after passing of award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 7-5-1977, the petitioners had obtained the amount of compensation falling to the shares of their sisters also, as is sought to be asserted by learned Counsel for the petitioners. At this stage, I deem it just and proper to direct the petitioners to file affidavits of their sisters namely Gurdip Kaur, Pritam Kaur and Guddi @ Gurmit Kaur stating that their share of compensation be disbursed to the petitioners.
List again on 15-2-2006.
8. In pursuance to the aforementioned direction, all the four sisters have filed affidavits dated 14-2-2006 and copies thereof were furnished to the learned State counsel on 15-2-2006. In their affidavits all the sisters have conceded that their brothers (who are the petitioners) were entitled to claim compensation in respect of their share as well. With regard to the payment received earlier, documents have also been placed on record which include Form-E. The entries at Sr. Nos. 29 to 34 shows that the compensation was awarded to the petitioners and their four sisters, which are taken on record as Mark-A. When the matter was argued on 18-1-2006, the State record was produced to show that the petitioners have received compensation on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their sisters.
9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, has committed an error apparent on the face of record by refusing to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioners in respect of the share of land belonging to their four sisters. Benefit of compensation has to enure to the petitioners in view of the decree of the Civil Court dated 12-1-1972 (P-4) appended with C.M. No. 7183-CII of 2004. Even otherwise the affidavits filed by the sisters have not been controverted and the enhanced compensation has already been deposited with the Executing Court long ago. It is further admitted position that the petitioners had received compensation on behalf of their sisters when the award was announced on 29-3-1977. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioners filed an application stating that the mutation had been sanctioned in the name of the petitioners even in respect of the land which fell to the share of their four sisters. A copy of the jamabandi of the year 1969-1970 showing mutation No. 2377 was attached with the application. The extra Assistant Colonisation Officer exercising the power of Land Acquisition Collector under the Act effected amendment in the names of person figuring at Sr. Nos. 31 to 34 in RD No. 13 of 31-3-1997 for the purposes of payment. The document figures at Page 15 of the File-I (Revenue Deposit File). The old entry showing the names and amount of compensation of their respective shares along with the amended entry reads as under:
Sr. Old Entry New amended
No. of entry and
amount
E/Rev.
1. 31 Mohinder Kaur Rs. 2570.93 | 1. Amarjit Singh
d/o Assa Singh | s/o Assa Singh
| Rs. 5141.85
2. 32 Pritam Kaur Rs. 2570.92 |
d/o Assa Singh |
3. 33 Gurdeep Kaur Rs. 2570.92 |
d/o Assa Singh |
4. 34 Smt. Guddi Rs. 2570.93 | 2. Manjit Singh
d/o Assa Singh | s/o Assa Singh
| Rs. 5141.85
Total Rs. 10283.70 | Rs. 10283.70
10. After the corrections were carried out and the petitioners' names were entered in the record deleting the name of their four sisters holding them entitled to Rs. 5141=85 Ps. each in respect the share of their sisters as well the petitioners were also paid the aforementioned amount as is evident from the perusal of Page 7 of the File-I (Revenue Deposit File) under the heading "Acquittance Roll for the payment of undisbursed compensation of Batala Mandi RD No, 13/31-3-1997...." Entries 10 and 11 relate to petitioners Amarjit Singh and Manjit Singh respectively which show that payment of compensation of Rs. 5141 = 85Ps has been received by each one of the petitioners. Therefore, it is obvious that the respondents have accepted the claim of the petitioners that they were entitled to payment of compensation in respect of the share of their sisters as well. The payment has actually been made to them.
11. Moreover, there is nothing in the order dated 30-11-1979 passed by the Reference Court to show that the enhanced compensation was confined only to the petitioners and it was not to be given to the four sisters because the application filed under Section 18 clearly asserted enhancement with regard to 1/5th share out of the total land measuring 4 acres 4 Kanals 19 Marias. The averments made in Para 4 of the application remained uncontroverted in the corresponding para of the reply filed by the respondent-State. Therefore, there was no warrant for the learned Executing Court-cum-Additional District Judge to confine the claim of the petitioners only to their individual shares by excluding the shares of their sisters.
12. In view of above, the impugned order dated 30-7-1984 is set aside. The petitioners are also held entitled to the award of enhanced compensation in respect of the share of their four sisters in terms of the order of the. learned Additional District Judge, dated 30-11-1979, which would include the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 666/- (Rupees six hundred sixty six only) per marla and solatium at the rate of 15 per cent besides interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession till realisation and costs of the proceedings. The petitioners are also held entitled to the cost of the litigation which I quantify at Rs. 5.000/-.