CIVIL APPEAL 811 of 1991 on 10 January 1986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R. F. A. No. 811 of 1991Date of Decision : May 26, 2009

Gurbachan Singh and others .... AppellantsVs. State of Punjab and another....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocatefor the appellants.

Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. A. G., Punjab

for the respondents.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

By this common judgment, I am disposing of four appeals i.e.R. F. A. Nos. 811 of 1991, 812 of 1991, 813 of 1991and1686 of 1991 asall these four appeals have been preferred by land owners for enhancementof compensation, as awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot,vide impugned Award dated 01.12.1990, whereby petitions filed by theappellants and many other land owners under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act) were disposed of.

State Government, vide notification dated 10.01.1986 issuedunder Section 4 of the Act, notified land measuring 62 kanals 05 marlassituated in the revenue estate of Village Dhilwan Kalan for acquisition for public purpose namely for straightening of portion of National HighwayNo. 15. Land Acquisition Collector, vide Award No. 1 dated 18.06.1986,determined market value of the acquired land @ Rs.30,000/- per acre fornehri land measuring 60 kanals 01 marla and @ Rs.20,000/- per acre forthe remaining gair mumkin chhappar (01 kanal – 06 marlas) and gairmumkin rasta (18 marlas). The land owners were not satisfied with thecompensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and therefore,filed petitions under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation atenhanced rate alleging that market value of the acquired land wasRs.1,00,000/- per acre. It may be noticed that before the Land AcquisitionCollector, the land owners claimed the market value of the acquired land tobe Rs.45,000/- per acre only for nehri land.

The respondents controverted the stand of the land owners byfiling written statement and pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector hasawarded compensation as per market value.

Following common issued were framed in the cases :- “1.Whether the compensation paid is inadequate ? If so, what compensation should have been paid ?OPAOPA

2. Whether the application is not maintainable in thepresent form ? OPRpresent form ? OPR

3. Relief.”

Learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide impugnedAward dated 01.12.1990, determined the market value of the acquired landto be Rs.37,000/- per acre for nehri land and Rs.27,000/- per acre for theremaining land under issue no.1. Issue no.2 was decided against therespondents as neither pressed nor proved. The reference petitions wereaccordingly disposed of by awarding compensation for the acquired land atthe aforesaid rates.

Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners have filed the instant appeals.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thecase files.

Santa Singh land owner (AW-1) and Sodagar Singh landowner (AW-2) have stated about location of the acquired land. They alsostated that its market value was Rs.1,00,000/- per acre at the time ofacquisition. Dhanna Singh – retired SDO (AW-3) proved site plan (Ex.A-1)regarding location of the acquired land. He also proved aks masavi (Ex.A-2) besides his report (Ex.A-3). The land owners also tendered in evidencejudgment dated 09.04.1990 (Ex.A-4) passed by this Court inR. F. A. No.466 of 1988titledJai Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, wherebybunch of appeals relating to land acquired for establishment of new mandiat Kot Kapura were disposed of, determining the market value to be Rs.37/-per square yard. The land owners also produced copy of sale deed dated16.06.1987 (Ex.A-5) relating to a plot measuring 01 kanal – 5-1/3 marlassituated in abadi of Village Dhilwan Kalan for Rs.25,333/- i.e. at the rate ofRs.1,60,000/- per acre.

Arguments

On the other hand, respondents produced copies of three saledeeds Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4. Sale deeds Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 are both dated10.06.1985 regarding sale of 16 kanals land each for Rs.46,000/- i.e. @Rs.23,000/- per acre. Sale deed Ex.R-4 dated 24.07.1985 is regarding saleof 03 kanals land for Rs.9,000/- i.e. @ Rs.24,000/- per acre.

Learned Additional District Judge found judgment Ex.A-4 ofthis Court to be not of comparable land and also found sale instance Ex.A-5produced by the land owners to be not a comparable sale instance.Similarly, sale instances vide sale deeds Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 produced by therespondents were also found to be not comparable sale instances becauseeven the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation at a higher rate than depicted by these sale instances. However, learned AdditionalDistrict Judge, taking into consideration the location of the acquired landalong the National Highway and taking into consideration othercircumstances, enhanced the market value of the acquired land byRs.7,000/- per acre.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended thatjudgment Ex.A-4 of this Court pertains to land in Kot Kapura, which is at adistance of about 3 kilometers only from the acquired land and thereforejudgment Ex.A-4 should be taken into consideration for determining themarket value of the acquired land. The contention cannot be accepted.Santa Singh (AW-1) stated that the acquired land is 2½ to 3 kilometers fromthe Grain Market, Kot Kapura, to which judgment Ex. A-4 relates. SodagarSingh (AW-2) stated the said distance to be 2 kilometers. Dhanna Singh(AW-3) stated the said distance to be 3 kilometers. However, learnedAdditional District Judge has observed that in scaled site plan Ex. A-1,prepared by Dhanna Singh (AW-3), scale used is 1 inch = 100 meters andthe distance between Grain Market and acquired land is about 3½ feet in thesite plan. Calculated in this manner, the distance would come to about 4.2kilometers. Moreover, the acquired land of judgment Ex. A-4 was situatedwithin municipal limits of Kot Kapura. Acquired land in the instant cases issituated in Village Dhilwan Kalan. Abadi of Dhilwan Kalan intervenes theacquired land and Grain Market of Kot Kapura. The acquired land is onekilometer away on the other side from abadi of Village Dhilwan Kalan. Inthis view of the matter, judgment Ex.A-4 has no relevance in determiningthe market value of acquired land in the instant case. Even a small distancewithin municipal limits may result in vast difference in market value ofland. Moreover, the acquired land involved in judgment Ex.A-4 was foundsuitable for residential and commercial purposes, in view of locationthereof. The acquired land of that case was on the junction of two roads i.e.

Kot Kapura – Bathinda Road and Kot Kapura – Moga Road and there wasalso 3 karams vide kacha passage on third side of the said land. There wereshops on both sides of Kot Kapura – Bathinda Road as well as Kot Kapura –Moga Road, besides FCI godown, petrol pump and bus stand near the saidland. There was also a cinema hall on the Bathinda Road besides largenumber of buildings adjoining the acquired land. There were also shops inthe acquired land of that case. Consequently, there is no comparison of theacquired land of that case with acquired land of the instant case.

Sale deed Ex.A-5 has also rightly been discarded by theReference Court because the said sale deed pertains to a small residentialplot in the abadi, whereas the acquired land is a big chunk of agriculturalland situated about one kilometer away from abadi. Moreover, sale deedEx.A-5 was executed about 1½ years after notification under Section 4 ofthe Act and the same could have been manipulated to claim enhancedcompensation. In any event, the said sale deed is not comparable saleinstance as it relates to a plot of abadi area.

Sale instances Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 produced by the respondentsare somewhat comparable sale instances because the same relate to sale ofagricultural land just 6-7 months prior to the date of notification underSection 4 of the Act. Land of these sale deeds has been depicted in site planEx. R-1 and the same is just near the acquired land. Land of sale deedEx.R-2 even abuts the National Highway. According to the sale deedsEx.R-2 to Ex.R-4, the market value of the land was Rs.23,000/- toRs.24,000/- per acre only. However, these sale instances were ignored bythe Reference Court because even the Land Acquisition Collector hasawarded compensation at higher rate.

Learned counsel for the appellants next emphatically contendedthat the acquired land was located on National Highway and therefore, hadpotential value. Learned counsel for the appellants relying on four judgments of this Court in the cases ofSurat Singh vs. State of Haryanareported as2000 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 349, Bhulla Ram alias Bhola, BholaRam vs. State of Haryana reported as 1996 (1) R.R.R. 761,BinkalKumar vs. State of Haryana and another reported as 1991 (1) R.R.R.237 andSmt. Bindu Garg vs. State of Haryana reported as 1999 (2)R.C.R. (Civil) 261 contended that in view of location of the acquired landon National Highway, the land owners are entitled to enhancedcompensation. The contention cannot be accepted because learnedAdditional District Judge, after taking into consideration the location of theacquired land on the National Highway, has enhanced the market value byRs.7,000/- per acre for the acquired land, notwithstanding that no evidenceof any comparable sale instances was adduced by the land owners. Thecompensation awarded by the Reference Court cannot be said to be less thanthe market value of the acquired land on the date of notification underSection 4 of the Act, in any manner. The Reference Court has already takena favourable view for the land owners.

In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in these appeals, whichare accordingly dismissed.

May 26, 2009

monika

( L. N. MITTAL )JUDGE