Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Ram vs The State Of Punjab And Another on 11 November, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 2360 of 1989 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 2360 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision 11.12.2008.
Ganga Ram ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 3.12.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Jhinjri, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, for the diversion of "Khad" of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, "the Collector") assessed the fair value of the land at Rs. 8,480/- per acre for banjar qadim and Rs. 4,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 2.6.1989, assessed the compensation at Rs. 20,000/- per acre for banjar qadim and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the relevant piece of evidence in the form of Ex. P-1 produced on record vide which the land measuring 13 marlas was sold for Rs. 8,000/- at an average price of Rs. 98,461.50 paise per acre vide registered sale deed dated 19.12.1985. Even though the same was executed nearly two weeks after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the same can be relied upon after a reasonable cut was applied therein, R. F. A No. 2360 of 1989 (2) which can be to the extent of 1/3rd and the value of the acquired land can very well be determined at Rs. 66,000/- per acre, whereas the learned court below has merely determined the same at Rs.20,000/- per acre for banjar qadim and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. He further referred to the material on record to show the relevance of sale-deed Ex. P-1 considering that the acquired land was merely 100 yards from khasra no. 1221/2 from which 13 marlas of land was sold.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the sale-deed as produced by the appellant could not be considered at all, the same having been registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. He further submitted that it was admitted case of the landowner that part of the land was not cultivable. The sale-deed as was produced by the State clearly established that the value of the land as determined by the Collector was quite reasonable and the same did not call for any interference.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. None of the counsel has pointed out as to whether any appeal arising out of the same acquisition is either pending or decided by this court, accordingly, the present case is taken up for hearing independently.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below has not relied upon Ex. P-1 or Ex. P-2 produced by the landowner as such though a reference thereto has been made only for the purpose of estimation of the value of the acquired land as a thumb rule. In my considered opinion, the approach of the learned court below was not wrong considering the fact that the transaction was entered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Sale-deed Ex. P-2 as such could not be relied upon as the same was registered more than a year after the notification for acquisition. It is also the case of the respondent that the acquired land was not cultivable. Even PW2 admitted that only some part of the land was cultivable. There was no other evidence on record to suggest that the value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition was much more than what was determined by the learned court below. An isolated sale transaction measuring 13 marlas of land, that too, after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be said to be a safe basis for placing reliance for determination of value of the acquired land.
R. F. A No. 2360 of 1989 (3)In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed.
11.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge