Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh Sahai Ohri And Another vs The Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 25 January, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 2339 of 1990 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2339 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.1.2012
Baldev Singh Sahai Ohri and another .... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab with
Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal,J.
The landowners are in the appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 6.8.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Maili, District Hoshiarpur, for construction of Maili Dam. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value @ ` 8,000/- per acre for banjar kadim, ` 15,000/- per acre for barani and ` 5,000/- per acre for gair mumkin khad pahar kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below vide award dated 11.6.1990, while granting compensation on account of severance did not award statutory benefits thereon. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal by the landowners.
R. F. A No. 2339 of 1990 (2)Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has wrongly declined the claim of the appellants. Sufficient evidence has been led to assess the compensation for the acquired land. The value of the land at the time of acquisition was more than ` 30,000/- per acre. Due to construction of Dam, the remaining land of the appellants had become useless, but the learned court below, inspite of evidence available on record, has wrongly declined the claim of the appellants regarding solatium and interest. The prayer is for quashing of the impugned award of the learned court below and grant of enhanced market value of the acquired land and solatium and interest.
On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded to the landowners by the Collector keeping in view the location and value of the land in the area. The landowners did not produce any sale transaction or any other documentary evidence to show the market value of the acquired land. Rather the State had produced evidence to show the location of the acquired land and the value thereof. As the remaining land had become unfit for cultivation due to water lodging, the landowners have already been granted compensation @ 50% of the market value of the remaining 50 kanals 16 marlas unacquired land.
As far as grant of solatium and interest is concerned, it was submitted that the landowners are not entitled to solatium and interest in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Amarjit Singh and another 2011 (4) SCC 734. The trial court had rightly rejected their claim.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book.
Firstly as far as the assessment of fair value of the acquired land is concerned, nothing has been produced on record to show the market value of the acquired land in the area. No sale transaction or any other document showing the value of the land in the area has been produced in the evidence by the landowners. The only evidence which had been produced is in the form of oral statement of Baldev Singh Sahai Ohri- appellant. The same cannot be considered for assessing the value of the land. Since the R. F. A No. 2339 of 1990 (3) remaining land of the appellants had become useless for cultivation due to construction of Dam, the learned court below had already granted them compensation @ 50% of the market value of the remaining unacquired land. Accordingly, I do not find that any case for enhancement of compensation is made out.
As far as grant of solatium and additional compensation is concerned, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra) held as under:-
"Thus a person whose land is acquired is entitled to the following amounts under the Act.
(a) Compensation determined under Section 23 (1) of the Act (comprising the market value of the land referred to as the first factor and any damages/ expenses referred to as the second to sixth factors under the said sub-section).
(b) Solatium at 30% on the market value determined as the first factor under Section 23 (1) of the Act.
(c) Additional amount at 12% per annum of the market value of the land referred to as the first factor under Section 23 (1) of the Act, for the period specified in Section 23 (2).
(d) Interest on the aggregate of (a), (b) and (c) above for the period between the date of taking possession to date of payment/ deposit at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the remaining period."
A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that solatium and additional compensation @ 12% per annum is available only on compensation as assessed under first factor under Section 23 (1) of the Act.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
25.1.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge