Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State And Others vs Usha Rani on 27 September, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RFA No.1006 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.9.2011
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Usha Rani
-----Respondent
and other connected cases being
RFA No.1007 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Hussain
-----Respondent
RFA No.1008 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Bhago
-----Respondent
RFA No.1009 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Tarsem Raj
-----Respondent
RFA No.1010 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Rakesh Kumar
-----Respondent
RFA No.1011 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Rattno Devi
-----Respondent
RFA No.1012 of 2010 (O&M)
RFA No.1006 of 2010 2
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Gurdev Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1013 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Puran Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1014 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Yussaf
-----Respondent
RFA No.1015 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Basir Mohammad
-----Respondent
RFA No.1016 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Karan Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1017 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Puran Chand
-----Respondent
RFA No.1018 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Dhano Devi
-----Respondent
RFA No.1019 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
RFA No.1006 of 2010 3
-----Appellants
Vs.
Khem Raj
-----Respondent
RFA No.1020 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Karnail Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1021 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Makhan Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1022 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Sarla Devi
-----Respondent
RFA No.1023 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Balbir Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1024 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Ram Piari
-----Respondent
RFA No.1025 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Rattan Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1026 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
RFA No.1006 of 2010 4
Vs.
Usha Rani
-----Respondent
RFA No.1027 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Karnail Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.1028 of 2010 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Diwan Chand
-----Respondent
RFA No.5247 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Mahesh Dutt
-----Respondent
RFA No.5248 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Pawan Kumar
-----Respondent
RFA No.5249 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Khem Raj etc.
-----Respondents
RFA No.5250 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Manjoor Hussain
-----Respondent
RFA No.5251 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
RFA No.1006 of 2010 5
Vs.
Falli
-----Respondent
RFA No.5252 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Sher Mohammad
-----Respondent
RFA No.5253 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Bimla Devi
-----Respondent
RFA No.5254 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Sanjay Kumar
-----Respondent
RFA No.5255 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Bhuri Chand
-----Respondent
RFA No.5256 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Falli
-----Respondent
RFA No.5257 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Ganesh Dutt etc. -----Respondents
RFA No.5258 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
RFA No.1006 of 2010 6
Gandharav Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.5259 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Manjit Kaur
-----Respondent
RFA No.5260 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Daya Wanti
-----Respondent
RFA No.5261 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Puran Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.5262 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Dev Raj
-----Respondent
RFA No.5263 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Tirath Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.5264 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Anchal Singh -----
Respondent
RFA No.5265 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
RFA No.1006 of 2010 7
Darshana Devi
-----Respondent
RFA No.5266 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Diwan Chand etc.
-----Respondent
RFA No.5267 of 2009 (O&M)
Jaishi
-----Appellants
Vs.
Pawan Kumar
-----Respondent
RFA No.5268 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Major Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.5269 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Raj Kumar
-----Respondent
RFA No.5270 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Kiran Kumari
-----Respondent
RFA No.5271 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Onkar Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.5272 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
RFA No.1006 of 2010 8
Baldev Singh
-----Respondent
RFA No.5328 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Gavan Kumar
-----Respondent
RFA No.5329 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Hassan Deen
-----Respondent
and RFA No.5330 of 2009 (O&M)
Punjab State and others
-----Appellants
Vs.
Hassan Deen
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present:- Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Punjab
Mr. Rajesh Garg, R.S. Manhas, Advocate
for the respondents.
---
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of 52 appeals being RFA Nos.5247 to 5272 and 5328 to 5330 of 2009 and 1006 to 1028 of RFA No.1006 of 2010 9 2010 which have been filed by the State of Punjab challenging the impugned award of the Reference Court dated 17.1.2008 on the ground that the market value of the acquired land which has been determined at `1600/- per marla is on the higher side and is liable to be reduced. These appeals have been filed after expiry of the limitation period and there is delay of 492 days in filing the appeals. There is also delay of 93 days in refiling of some of the appeals. For brevity, facts have been taken from RFA No.1006 of 2010.
2. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay in the instant case read thus:-
"1. That the office of Director Prosecution and Litigation furnished the opinion that these cases are not fit for filing appeal vide his No.1292 CO-3 (156) 03 dated 18.3.2008 and further endorsed the Superintending Engineer, Admn. & Disposal Circle, RSD-Shahpurkandi vide his letter no.4660/217 dated 24.3.08.
2. That this office wrote to the Superintending Engineer, Admn and Disposal Circle, Shahurkandi to review the matter with the Director, Prosecution and Litigation regarding for filing appeal in the Hon'ble PB & Haryana High Court Chandigarh vide this office letter No.5343-44/28-W/CC dated 2.10.08.
3. That the O/o Superintending Engineer, Admn & Disposal Circle, Shahpurkandi has wrote to Chief Engineer/RSDC, I.W. PB.SPK that the matter may be referred to the Director, Prosecution and Litigation to review the opinion for filing appeal vide his office letter no.2014-15/2-L dated 11.12.08.RFA No.1006 of 2010 10
4. That O/o CE/RSDC, Irri. Works, PB, Shahpurkandi T/Ship has issued the sanction vide his office Leter no.17-18/LC-18 dated 6.1.09.
5. That this office wrote to Superintending Engineer, Admn & Disposal Circle, Shahpurkandi for arranging the sanction amount to Rs.62,000/- for filing the appeal in the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide this office letter no.1512/28-W dated 27.3.09.
6. That the Superintending Engineer, Admn & Disposal Circle, RSD-Shahpurkandi accorded sanction amounting to Rs.62,000/- for filing appeal in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide his office letter No.4464-66/2-L dated 2.4.2009.
7. That the Sub Divisional Officer, Thein Survey Sub Divn. No.II RSD-SPK wrote to the Executive Engineer, Project & R.M. Divn RSD-Shahpurkandi for issue of temporary imprest amounting to Rs.62,000/- in favour of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sony J.E. for filing the appeal vide his office letter No.34 Dated 9.4.09.
8. That this office wrote to the Asstt. Controller, Project & R.M. Works Section O/o FA & CAO, RSD- Shahpurkandi for issue of temporary imprest amount to Rs.62,000/- in favour of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sony J.E. for filing of appeal vide his office letter no.2150- 51/28-W/CC dated 25.5.09.
9. That the office of Asstt. Controller, Project & R.M. Works section O/O FA & CAO, RSD-SPK issued temporary imprest amounting to Rs.62,000/- in favour of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sony J.E. for filing appeal in the Hon'ble High Court Chandigarh.RFA No.1006 of 2010 11
10. That the delay of 492 days to relief the regular appeal against the judgment order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Addl. And Sessions Judge Gurdaspur be condoned. The delay is procedural and not intentional."
3. From the perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is made out that initially the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab vide his letter dated 18.3.2008 which was endorsed to the Superintending Engineer of the respondent-Department vide his letter dated 24.3.2008 had opined that these cases were not fit for filing appeal. Thereafter, the department took its own sweet time to decide as to whether the judgment should be appealed or not. It may also be noticed that as per the averments made in his affidavit, the Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam Project sanctioned filing of these appeals, overruling the decision of the Director, Prosecution and Litigation Branch, Punjab vide his letter dated 6.1.2009. Still these appeals could be filed only on 10.2.2010 and 26.11.2010. The averments made in this regard read that it is a procedural delay.
4. In the considered view of this Court, no sufficient cause has been shown by the State of Punjab for condoning the delay. It will also be relevant to refer to order dated 25.7.2011 and 16.8.2011 passed by this Court in the said appeals, which read thus:-
Order dated 25.7.2011:RFA No.1006 of 2010 12
"Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate, for the respondents.
-.-
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned State counsel has shown a copy of the letter dated 6.1.2009 issued by the Chief Engineer, Ranjeet Sagar Dam Project to show that the State Government has given sanction to file these appeals before this Court.
Let the file of the State Government, whereby the opinion of the Director, Prosecution and Litigation, Punjab, Chandigarh, where he has said that these appeals were not fit for filing, has been over-ruled, be produced before this Court on 16.8.2011.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the each file of the connected appeals.
July 25, 2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
Judge"
Order dated 16.8.2011:
"Present:- Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the respondents.
*** Learned State counsel seeks more time to produce the record as sought in order dated 25th July, 2011.
List on 27.09.2011.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected cases."RFA No.1006 of 2010 13
16.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge"
5. In spite of the aforesaid orders, the appellant-State has failed to produce the aforesaid record before this Court.
Thus, this Court is not in a position to ascertain the averments made by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay. It is not the case of the appellants that they were prevented by any reason which was beyond their control to take such a decision in time. Since no sufficient cause has been shown, prayer for condoning the delay in filing these appeals is rejected.
6. Even this Court has perused the impugned award on merits also. Apart from the award, the record was also seen with the help of learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the instant case, land was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam reservoir vide notification dated 7.8.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"). The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the land owners at the following rates:-RFA No.1006 of 2010 14
8. Type of Land Amount of Compensation (in `) Abi/Gair Mumkin abadi 60,000/-
Barani-I 48,000/-
Barani-II 43,200/-
Barani-III 36,000/-
Banjir Qadin 18,000/-
Gair Mumkin (per 12,000/- with 30% solatium
and 12% increase from the
acre)
date of notification u/s 4 i.e.
29.8.95 to the date of
Collector's award dated
25.8.98
Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the land owners filed reference applications which have been decided by the Reference Court vide impugned award and a uniform rate of `1600/- per marla has been determined as the market value of the land in question on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
9. Shri Kapoor, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has pointed out that the acquired land being stony, uneven and of low-lying area could not have been used for any other purpose except cultivation and even this land was yielding only one crop during the entire one year and that too depending upon the rain, as there was no irrigation facilities.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Manhas, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants has argued that various factors which were relevant have been ignored for determining the market value of the land in question and in fact, the land owners are entitled to much higher compensation than the RFA No.1006 of 2010 15 awarded amount. Learned counsel has also pointed out that much higher compensation has been granted to land owners whose land was acquired downstream the Ranjit Sagar Dam pertaining to Village Hadial, Haroor and Rajpura. It is also contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the land falling in the area of the State of Himachal Pradesh which was acquired for this very purpose has been assessed at a much higher rate than the amount awarded.
11. The aforesaid facts could not be disputed before this Court. Not only this, even in the grounds of appeal, except the arguments raised, it has not been shown how the amount of compensation, as determined by the Reference Court is on the higher side and thus, on the facts of the case, this Court even finds no merit in these appeals.
12. Thus, the appeals filed on behalf of the State of Punjab are dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits also. It is made clear that dismissal of these appeals will have no affect on the appeals filed on behalf of the land owners for enhancement of compensation and they will be decided independently.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.
September 27, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE