Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Mehar Singh on 4 January, 2001
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. By this judgment, I dispose of as many as 11 appeals filed by the State of Punjab against the respondents, i.e., RFA Nos. 133 to 143 of 1999, and these appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 4.11.1996 passed by the learned Disit. Judge, Rupnagar, u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, vide which he awarded compensation @ Rs. 1.75 lacs for all types of land besides the grant of statutory benefits and interest u/ss. 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Amended Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the land of the land owners situated in Village Nanu Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Rupnagar, was acquired by the Govt. for the construction of lower Branch Canal and notification No. 1522/SYL/Const. 88 u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 24,3.1988. The notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued on 15.4.1988. Vide order dated 19.6.1990, the Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 60,000/--per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.36,000/-per acre for Gair Mumkin Land. Regarding trees, fruit trees etc., the Collector observed as under :-
"As the assessment report of the technical officers have not so far been received, on the receipt of the same, the claims will be disposed of accordingly through a separate award."
Regarding structures, wells and tubewells etc. the Collector observed as under :-
"As the assessment report of the competent technical officer has not so far been received, on the receipt of the same, the claims will be disposed of accordingly through a separate award."
3. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners filed a reference u/s 18 of the Act before the court of learned Distt. Judge, Rupnagar, who entertained the reference and framed the following issues :-
"1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate ? If so, to what extent ? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation ? If so, to what extent? OPP
3. Relief."
4. In support of their case, the claimants-land owners examined Mehar Singh, PW-1, and tendered into evidence copy ' judgment, Ex. PA, and closed their evidence. On the other hand, the respondents tendered into evidence copies of sale deeds, Ex. R-l and R-2.
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned. Distt. Judge awarded compensation @ Rs. 1.75 lacs per acre for all types of land besides other benefits u/ss 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Distt. Judge, the present appeals by the State of Punjab.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
7. Counsel for the State vehemently submitted that the observations made by the learned Distt. Judge arc erroneous. The State has produced instances as contained in Ex. R-l and R-2 and according to which the value of the Kind conies to Rs. 33,800/- and Rs. 38,260/- respectively and since these are the best instances, therefore, the findings of the Court while enhancing the compensation @ Rs. 1.75 lacs are erroneous.
8. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents has supported the reasons given by the learned Distt. Judge.
9. Before I deal with the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, it will be appropriate for me to reproduce para-17 of the impugned award, vide which the enhanced compensation has been granted to the land owners, which reads as under :-
"There is no dispute that land of this village adjoins the revenue limits of village Sambalkhi, Sohana and other villages and is situated near Mohali and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gokal Chand Mital and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Chahal at page No. 4 of judgment Ex. PA, observed as under :-
"The four villages are in the near vicinity of each other and are part of SAS Nagar/Mohali and this town is adjoining Union Territory of Chandigarh on one side and, therefore, has acquired potential for urbanisation. In Mohali itself lot of construction had come up before the acquisitions in dispute and therefore contiguous villages on this ground had also gained potential for urbanisation. Once urbanisation has come up and the acquired land has gained potential for that purpose it will be wholly wrong to classify the land on the basis of agricultural quality. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire land including these which are Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim cannot be kept in a separate category for fixing price. However, if it is found that the land is in depression because of Chhappar (Pond) or because of Khatar, lesser price may have to be fixed.
Before this Court, cases relating to acquisition of numerous villages in the Union Territory Chandigarh for extension of Sectors came up for consideration in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1207 of 1981 Jaswant Singh v. Union of India decided on 22.9.1982 wherein it was urged that there was hardly any scope for giving different/varied market price of land in different villages on the basis of its potentiality, it was held that it was appropriate to fix uniform rate for the land acquired in all the villages. The facts in these cases are similar and for the reasons recorded in Jaswant Singh's case (supra) we are of the view that the land acquired in all the four villages deserves to be allowed market rate at, the uniform rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. We order accordingly.
Land of this village also adjoins the land of other villages and is also near Sohana. So, the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/-per acre."
10. I do not subscribe to the argument of the counsel for the appellant. While awarding the compensation of the land, this Court is to be guided by the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, which lays down as follows :-
"23. Mailers to be considered in determining compensation. - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to the awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration -
first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1);
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the lime of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earning;
fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the lime of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
(1-A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, which-ever is earlier.
Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any slay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.
(2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
11. The acquired area is situated in village Nanu Majra, which is adjoining to Villages Mataur, Sohana, Manak Majra and Mauli, which villages adjoin Villages Kambali and Kambala. The land was acquired for construction of SYL Canal. We have to see the potential value of the land on the date of the issuance of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. This land is very near (o Mohali, which is a satellite town of Chandigarh and is galloping like anything. Therefore, the potential value of the land can be considered as urban land and can be well utilized for the purposes of construction of the buildings. In the adjoining villages, the Govt. acquired the land in the year 1981, i.e. on 4.2.1981. Compensation was awarded to the land owners, which was not accepted and those land owners filed I,PA No. 679 of 1989 and a Hon'ble D.B. of this court vide judgment dated 10.9.1990 awarded compensation @ Rs. 1.75 lacs per acre with respect to the area situated in Villages Mataur, Sohana, Kambala and Kambali. In the present case, the notification is of 1988. The trans-
actions which have been relied upon by the State cannot give us the correct picture because the area involved in one sale deed is hardly 7 kanals 2 marlas and in the other sale deed the area is I kanal 3 marlas. Moreover, the vendors and vendees of these documents have also not been examined by the State to give the factual picture of the quality of the land involved in the sale deeds. In these circumstances, this court cannot rely upon the instances of sale deeds, Ex. R-l and R-2, whereas the criteria as adopted in the judgment, Ex. PA, relied upon by the respondents, can be adopted in the present case also.
12. In this view of the matter, I do not see any illegality in the judgment given by the learned Distt. Judge, Rupnagar and the appeals are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.
13. Appeals dismissed.