Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab Through Collector vs Shri Radha Krishan on 21 August, 1989
Equivalent citations: (1990)97PLR270
JUDGMENT J.S. Sekhon, J.
1. The Judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1083,1084, 1085 and 1086 of, the year 1984, tiled by the State of Punjab as well as the respective, Cross Objections Nos. 90 91-C1, 92 Cland 93- Cl of 1984 filed by the concerped Landowners, as all these matters arise out of the same award of the learned Addl. District Judge Hoshiarpur and rest upon the same evidence.
2. In brief, the facts, are that in pursuance- of the notification published on December 29, 1978 under Section 4 of the Laud Acquisition Apt, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the State of Punjab sought to acquire 743 acres of land from, the revenue estate of village Naloian, Hadbast No. 225, Tehsil and District; Hoshiarpur for canalising Nasraia Cho between city bridge and bye-pass bridge and for providing embankment on both sides. Notice under Section 6 of the Act was published on August 28, l981 After measurement of the land, the actual area of the land was found to be 7.33. acres. The Land Acquisition Coltector vide his , award dated, April 20, 1982 awarded compeasation of the land @ Rs. 200/- per Marla.
3. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the Compensation the Land Owners suocessfully sought Peference, under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the Distiict Judge, Hoshiarpur.
4. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his impugned award dated January 7, 1984 enhanced the compensation of the acquired and @ Rs. 500/- per marla. S/Shri Bishan Dass and Surender Singh etc., Land Owners were also awarded compensation Rs 250/- per marla, as their remaining unacquired land falling in between the two banks and spur was rendered useless All the claimants were awarded 15% solatium over and above referred compensation to the acquired land as well as interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession and till its payment.
5. The State of Punjab being aggrieved against the above referred award of the learned Additional District Judge has come up in the above referred Regular First Appeals; while the Landowners have filed Cross objections in the respective appeals filed against them being not satisfied with the adequacy of the compensation.
6. Vide order dated November1, 1988, Civil Misc. No. 1603-CI of 1988 was allowed in order to produce certified copies of the corresponding sale deeds to mutation A3 to A-6 relied upon by the trial Court as the copies of mutation were held in adimissible in evidence in order to ascertain the terms and conditions of the respective sale deeds by the Full Court of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu, (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 109. Those sale deeds were ordered to be read in evidence as Exhibts A3/1 to A6/1 respectively.
7. Mr. K. P. Bhandari, learned Advocate General assisted by Sh. Ravi Kapur, Advocate assailed the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that he has taken into consideration the sales transactions pertaining to small pieces of land while assessing the value of the large compact of land. It was also maintained that compensation of the unacquired land was also allowed even that no issue was struck and the Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction.
8. Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Landowners, on the other hand maintained that the learned Additional District Judge had ignored the situation, potential of the acquired land for residential and commercial purposes being located within the Municipal limits of Hoshiarpur Town. He also maintained that the mutations, subject mater of sale deeds Exts. A.3/1, A.4/1 and A 6/1 were wrongly ignored. It was also maintained that the compensation of the remaining land rendered useless by the construction of the bandh and spur should have been awarded at, the same rate as the compensation of the acquired land Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Smt. Narinder Kaur v. 'The State of Punjab (1981)) 82 P. L. R. 473.
9. There is no dispute between the parties that the acquired land is located in the urban limits of Hoshiarpar Town and near Nasrala Choe As a matter of fact, the sale deeds Exhibits A 3 to A. 6 relied upon by the claimints in this case being pertaining to small areas of land, ranging from 2 Marias to 10 Marias, depicted the market Value of those lands for residential and commercial purposes as nobody would like to purchase such small pieces of land for agricultural purposes. The learned Additional District Judge had ignored the sale transactions subject matter of mutations Exhibits A, 7' to A. 11 pertaining to the years 1980 and 1981 i. e. two/three years after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i. e. on December 29, 1978 The sale deeds Exhibits A, 3/1 and A. 4 were ignored as the land subject matter of these deeds was located at some distance from, the land in question. The sale deeds.. Exhibits A 5/1 and A 6/1 were made the basis of the award, because the lands of these deeds were sold at similar price and the land subject matter of,sale deed Exhibit A 5/1 form part of the acquired land. The following data regarding the detailed particulars of the sale deeds would be conducive for understanding the controversy.
Exhibit Date of Area of Consideration Rate
Execution land per
Maria
A. 3/1 21.3.1976 6-Marias Rs. 4,950/- Rs. 825/-
A. 4/1 3.9.1976 10-Marias Rs. 9,000/- Rs. 900/-
A. 5/1 17.6.1977 2-Marlas Rs 1,000/- Rs. 500/-
A. 6/1 17.6.1977 6-Marlas Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 500/-
10. All the above referred sale deeds depicted the prevalent price of the land about one and half years prior to its acquisition. In view of the factum that the value of the urban immoveable property is being appreciated from year to year, it can be well said that the market value of the acquired land on December 29, 1V78 would be at least 15% more than the one prevalent one and half years earlier. The land subject matter of sale deeds Exhibits R. 2, R. 3 and R. 4 cannot be said to be comparable with the value of the acquired land as the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded more compensation of the acquired land than one evinced by these sale deeds.
11. The perusal of the copy R. 1 of the Aksh Shajra would show that the land subject matter of sale deed Exhibit A. 3/1 forming part of Khasra No. 44/24 falling at a distance of hardly at 1-Killa i. e. 40 Karms) from the acquired land. Similarly, the land subject matter of sale deed Exhibit A. 4/1 comprising in Khasra No. 44/18/1 hardly falls at a distance of 10 Karms from the acquired land. So, it cannot be said that the land subject matter of the sale deeds Exhibits A. 3/1 and A. 4/1 was in any manner better situated than the land of the appellants. It is note-worthy that some portion of the acquired land of the appellant abutted on the roads shown in black colour in the plan Exhibit R 1. Under these circumstances, it appears that the learned Additional District Judge bad wrongly ignored the sale trans- actions Exhibits A. 3/1 and A. 4/1. The average price, per marla, of the land subject matter of the sale deeds Exhibits A. 3/1. A. 4/1. A. 5/1 and A. 6/1 works upto a little more than Rs. 680/- per marla. Keeping in view the small pieces of land would attract more value and fetch more price than large piece of land, it transpires that some percentage is required to be reduced. In the case in hand, as already held, 15% increase in the price of land during a span of one and half years between the execution of sale deeds and the acquisition of the land would work as a set off in this regard, Thus, the market price of the acquired land of the petitioner is assessed at Rs. 680/- per marla.
12. Regarding the compensation pertaining to the unacquired land of S/Sh. Bishan Dass and Sukhinder Singh etc, falling inside the bandh rendered useless, it transpires that they will get 50% of the market price as its compensation i. e. Rs. 340/- per marla. However, there is no justification in awarding the total market price of acquired land as compansation regarding the unacquired land as the same could be used by the landowners during the lean periods when there is no rain fall.
13. If need be, the deficiency of the Court fee be made good within three months of this order in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, A.I.R.. 1985 S.C. 1576.
14. For the foregoing reasons the Regular First Appeals filed by the State as well as X-Objections filed by the landowners are partly accepted to the extent referred to above.
15. The landowners shall also be entitled to an amount equal to 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land as under Section 23(1A) in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under this Act, the Court shall, in addition to the market value of the land in every case award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in respect of such land to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land which ever is earlier. Sub section (2) of this Section further shows that 30% solatium has to be awarded over the market value of the land and not on its compensation. Thus, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, in awarding solatium and amount equal to 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Act over the compensation of the unacquired land also not sustainable being illegal Similar view was taken by the Single Bench of this Court in Tehal Singh v. State of Punjab1987 LACC, 491. The appellants shall also be entitled 9% per annum interest on the enhanced compensation for the first year from the date of their dispossesion and 15% onward.