Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhim Sain Chhabra vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 March, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 1]
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : March 04, 2009
(1) R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003
Bhim Sain Chhabra ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(2) R.F.A. No. 303 of 2003
Manjit Singh Bedi ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(3) R.F.A. No. 304 of 2003
Karamjit Kaur ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(4) R.F.A. No. 305 of 2003
Budh Parkash and another ... Appellants
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(5) R.F.A. No. 306 of 2003
Kanta Gupta ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 2]
(6) R.F.A. No. 307 of 2003
Shanti Devi ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(7) R.F.A. No. 308 of 2003
Hukam Chand ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(8) R.F.A. No. 309 of 2003
Parkash Chand ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(9) R.F.A. No. 310 of 2003
Ravinder Kumar Sehgal ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(10) R.F.A. No. 311 of 2003
Amarjit Kaur ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(11) R.F.A. No. 312 of 2003
Sukhdarshan Singh Khera ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 3]
(12) R.F.A. No. 313 of 2003
Ajit Singh Bhatia ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(13) R.F.A. No. 314 of 2003
Kailash Gupta ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(14) R.F.A. No. 315 of 2003
Kusam Gupta ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(15) R.F.A. No. 316 of 2003
Yog Raj Gupta ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(16) R.F.A. No. 317 of 2003
Gurjit Kaur ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(17) R.F.A. No. 318 of 2003
Harjinder Kaur Chawla and another ... Appellants
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 4]
(18) R.F.A. No. 319 of 2003
Asha Bansal ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(19) R.F.A. No. 320 of 2003
Sukhdev Singh ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(20) R.F.A. No. 321 of 2003
Amar Partap Singh ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(21) R.F.A. No. 322 of 2003
Romeshwar Dass ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(22) R.F.A. No. 323 of 2003
Krishna Dulari and others ... Appellants
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(23) R.F.A. No. 324 of 2003
Santosh Kumari ... Appellant
v.
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 5]
(24) R.F.A. No. 1679 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Romeshwar Dass and others .. Respondents
(25) R.F.A. No. 1680 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Kanta Gupta and others .. Respondents
(26) R.F.A. No. 1681 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Ajit Singh Bhatia and others .. Respondents
(27) R.F.A. No. 1682 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Karamjit Kaur and others .. Respondents
(28) R.F.A. No. 1683 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Yograj Gupta and others .. Respondents
(29) R.F.A. No. 1684 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Budh Parkash and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 6]
(30) R.F.A. No. 1685 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Asha Bansal and others .. Respondents
(31) R.F.A. No. 1686 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Bhim Sain Chhabra and others .. Respondents
(32) R.F.A. No. 1687 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Sukhdarshan Singh Khehra and others ... Respondents
(33) R.F.A. No. 1688 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Gurjit Kaur and others .. Respondents
(34) R.F.A. No. 1689 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Harjinder Kaur Chawla and others .. Respondents
(35) R.F.A. No. 1690 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Sukhdev Singh and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 7]
(36) R.F.A. No. 1691 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Parkash Chand and others .. Respondents
(37) R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Kailash Gupta and others .. Respondents
(38) R.F.A. No. 1693 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Kusam Gupta and others .. Respondents
(39) R.F.A. No. 1694 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Saroj Modgil and others .. Respondents
(40) R.F.A. No. 1695 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Manjit Singh Bedi and others .. Respondents
(41) R.F.A. No. 1696 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Amar Partap Singh and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 8]
(42) R.F.A. No. 1697 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Hukam Chand and others .. Respondents
(43) R.F.A. No. 1698 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Smt. Santosh Kumari and others .. Respondents
(44) R.F.A. No. 1699 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Smt. Shanti Devi and others .. Respondents
(45) R.F.A. No. 1700 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Smt. Amarjeet Kaur and others .. Respondents
(46) R.F.A. No. 1701 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Ravinder Kumar Sehgal and others .. Respondents
(47) R.F.A. No. 1702 of 2003
Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala ... Appellant
v.
Krishna Dulari and others .. Respondents
R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 9]
Present: Mr. J. R. Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajiv Mittal and Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocates for the land owners.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of a bunch of 47 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.
R.F.A. Nos. 302 to 324 of 2003 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation.
In R.F.A. Nos. 1679 to 1702 of 2003, the State has prayed for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Court below.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 3.96 acres situated in village Karheri was acquired vide notification dated 6.7.1993 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development of residential Urban Estate, which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 15.12.1993. The Collector gave award of Rs. 300/- per square yard, i.e., Rs. 14,52,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land @ Rs. 400/- per square yard for the land comprised in khasra No. 152 and @ Rs. 350/- per square yard for the land falling in khasra Nos. 150 and 151.
Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question, which was a small plot of 3.96 acres was surrounded by already developed area. There was Urban Estate already developed in the neighbourhood. Punjabi University complex was just opposite the acquired land, which is situated on the main road leading from Rajpura to Patiala. The land in question was purchased by Mukhbant Singh from Punjab Agriculture University in an open auction. Thereafter, it was bifurcated into small plots after leaving roads etc. and was acquired subsequently. It was a developed piece of land. Sale deeds Ex. P.2 to Ex. P6, which were showing the average value from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 676.69 per square yard as the consideration money, have not been considered at all. The land pertaining thereto was located in the same village Karheri, where the acquired land was located. Reliance was also placed upon Ex. P.14, whereby 500 square yards of plot was sold vide allotment letter dated 11.8.1993 at an average price of Rs. 665/- per square yard. The submission is that it was located quite close to the acquired land and the valuation thereof was fixed much prior to the acquisition of R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 10] the land in question as the allotment was made on an application filed by the applicant on 7.7.1993. If the aforesaid evidence is considered in the light of the fact that the land owned by the owners in the present set of appeals is also in the form of small plots purchased by them, the value thereof deserves to be enhanced.
No one has appeared for the respondents in the appeals filed by the land owners or the appeals filed by the State.
Heard learned counsel for the land owners and perused the record. Location of the acquired land is evident from site plan (Ex. P18) on record. It shows that the same is located on the road leading from Rajpura to Patiala, opposite Punjabi University Complex. It also shows that towards Patiala, adjoining the acquired land is Urban Estate Complex and opposite that also, on the right side of Rajpura Patiala Road adjoining Punjabi University Complex is Urban Estate complex. The location of the land, as has been depicted in the site plan (Ex. P.18) is not in dispute. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, there is no site plan on record to depict the location of sale deeds (Ex. P.2 to Ex. P.6), sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners. All what is stated is that these are forming part of the land pertaining to village Karheri, to which the acquired land also belongs, is also not found to be meritorious for the reason that in none of the site plans, even village Karheri could be pointed out.
Another fact, which cannot be lost sight of is that the area of village Karheri must be a large area and as to at what place and with what advantages or disadvantages, the land pertaining to sale deeds Ex. P.2 to Ex. P.6 was sold is not borne out from the record. In the absence thereof, it is not possible for this Court to consider the comparability of the acquired land vis-a-vis the land dealt with in sale deeds Ex. P.2 to Ex. P.6.
As far as allotment letter Ex. P.14 is concerned, admittedly, the application for allotment of plot was filed on 7.7.1993, as is evident from the document itself. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 6.7.1993. For a plot of 500 square yards, the value was mentioned at Rs. 665/- per square yard. This part of the developed Urban Estate is located adjoining to the Punjabi University Complex. Sale instance of such a developed place cannot possibly be compared with the land in question, which was carved out in plots by a private person without other amenities being available here. As against this, the State had produced on record sale deeds Ex. R.1 to Ex. R.4 showing sale of plots in Urban Estate, Phase-II, which depicted the value at Rs. 665/- per squared yard. Another document, which had come on record is Ex. P.16, letter dated 23.9.1994 from the Deputy Commissioner, who opined that value of the land is Rs. 350/- per R.F.A. No. 302 of 2003 [ 11] square yard for Chahi land and Rs. 400/- per square yard for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Considering the aforesaid material, the learned court below determined the market value of the land forming part of khasra No. 152, which is abutting the main road leading from Rajpura to Patiala at Rs. 400/- per square yard and for the land behind that forming part of Khasra Nos. 150 and 151 at Rs. 350/- per square yard. The aforesaid assessment of value of land, in my opinion, cannot be faulted with. The front portion of the land in question certainly had a commercial potential being on main road leading from Rajpura to Patiala and also opposite the Punjabi University Complex. For that reason, the value thereof has been assessed at a higher price, as compared to the value of the land which was located behind that. The portion, which is located behind that cannot possibly be assessed at the same rate, as it has its own locational disadvantages.
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 04 ,2009 mk