R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision 9.12.2008.
1. R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (O&M)
Mohar Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
2. R. F. A No. 1621 of 1990 (O&M)
Inder Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others ….. Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector,
SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ….. Respondents
3. R. F. A No. 1622 of 1990 (O&M)
Joginder Singh ….. Appellant
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector,
SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ….. Respondents
4. R. F. A No. 1623 of 1990 (O&M)
Gurmail Singh and others ….. Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector,
SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ….. Respondents
5. R. F. A No. 1624 of 1990 (O&M)
Bahadur Singh and others ….. Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector,
SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ….. Respondents
6. R. F. A No. 2384 of 1991 (O&M)
Punjab State and another ….. Appellants
vs
Mohar Singh and others ….. Respondents
7. R. F. A No. 2385 of 1991 (O&M)
Punjab State and another ….. Appellants
vs
Joginder Singh ….. Respondent
R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (2)
8. R. F. A No. 2386 of 1991 (O&M)
Punjab State and another ….. Appellants
vs
Bahadur Singh and others ….. Respondents
9. R. F. A No. 2387 of 1991 and
Cross-objection No. 118/CI of 2004 (O&M)
Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,
Patiala and another ….. Appellants
vs
Harchand Singh and others ….. Respondents
10. R. F. A No. 2388 of 1991 (O&M)
Punjab State and another ….. Appellants
vs
Inder Singh and others ….. Respondents
11. R. F. A No. 2389 of 1991 (O&M)
The State of Punjab and another ….. Appellants
vs
Gurmail Singh and others ….. Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate, for the landowners.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1299,
1621 to 1624 of 1990 and Cross Objection No. 118/CI of 2004 filed by the
landowners and R. F. A. Nos. 2384 to 2389 of 1991 filed by the State of
Punjab, as the same arise out of the common acquisition of land falling in
the revenue estates of Village Nahalheri, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala.
The landowners have approached this court for further enhancement,
whereas the State has filed appeals for reduction in the compensation. The
facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 1299 of 1990.
R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (3)
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide
notification dated 5/6.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired the land situated
within the revenue estate of Village Nahalheri, Tehsil Sirhind, District
Patiala, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land
Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 2.7.1986 assessed the fair value
of the land at Rs. 72,990/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 35,000/- per acre for gair
mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned
court below vide his award dated 4.12.1989, determination the value of the
acquired land at Rs. 1 lac per acre.
Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the value of
land as assessed by the learned court below is not in conformity with the
evidence produced by the landowners on record. The awards pertaining to
the acquisition for the same purpose in the vicinity were not given due
weightage. The acquired land falls within the revenue limits of Nahalheri,
Tehsil Sirhind, which is surrounded by Villages Tajpura, Doom Cheri,
Kajoli and Ballan. It was further submitted that Morinda town is just at a
distance of about two kilometers. A residential colony is constructed in the
village. Referring to the statement of RW-1 Sham Lal Patwari it was
submitted that the acquired land was at a distance of about 1ΒΌ kilometer
from village abadi while it was half a kilometer by way of crow fly and
Village Tajpur is about one kilometer whereas Village Nalheri and Village
Ballan are at a distance of six kilometers. Morinda town is about 10
kilometers from the acquired land. He further submitted that the
compensation determined by the learned court below payable to the
landowners on account of severance is also deserves to be increased as
merely 30% was granted on that account.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that
the reliance on the earlier award was totally misplaced as in that case
reference was made to a settlement arrived at with the then Chief Minister
opining that the value of chahi land be determined at Rs. 1 lac per acre
whereas that settlement was perspective in nature.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
None of the counsel has pointed out as to whether any appeal
from the same acquisition is pending or decided by this court, accordingly,
R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (4)
the present case is taken up for hearing independently.
Learned court below while granting compensation to the
landowners in the present case for the acquired land had relied upon a
judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 2807 of 1987 The State of Punjab and
others vs Khushal Singh and others decided on 31.8.1989 (Ex. A-11) where
considering various factors and also the settlement arrived at between the
landowners and the Chief Minister, compensation was determined at Rs. 1
lac per acre. It is further brought to the notice of the court that in Lal Chand
(died) through LRs. Vs State of Punjab and another 2005 (2) All India
Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 228, this court while
considering the judgment in Khushal Singh’s case (supra), where the
acquisition under consideration was pertaining to the year 1985 granted
further increase for the time gap in the notifications for acquisition of land
pertaining to the same village. Meaning thereby even subsequently the
principle as was followed in Khushal Singh’s case (supra) was further
referred to and relied upon. Accordingly, as far as the determination of
value of the land is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere
therewith as there is no material on record even to further increase the same
as all the sale-deeds produced by the landowners pertained to Village
Tajpura, Kajoli and Ballan.
As far as the claim of the landowners regarding increase in the
percentage of severance is concerned, considering the material on record
where substantial piece of land was left out in the village side, the learned
court below has granted as severance 30% of the value of the land which, in
my opinion, does not call for any increase.
In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the appeals
as well as cross-objections, accordingly, the same are dismissed.
9.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge