RFA No.664 of 1991 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.664 of 1991
Date of Decision: 3.12.2008
Sir Bachittar Singh and another
..Appellants.
Vs.
The State of Punjab and another
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Vinod Kumar Kataria, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of 12 appeals, namely, RFA Nos.664 to
671, 738, 880, 1213 and 1219 of 1991 by a common judgment as common
question of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
Land measuring 34.75 acres situated in village Matta, Had
Bast No.132, Tehsil and District Faridkot was notified on 24.8.1984 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act’) and followed by
notification of declaration dated 29.11.1984 under Section 6 of the Act for
the construction of Sarawan Drain at public expense. Originally an area of
35.67 acres was notified under Section 6 of the Act but on actual
measurements carried out at the site, area of 34.75 acres was found showing
a decrease of 0.92 acres from the notified area, which was due to the
different method of calculating the area by Karams and by feets by the Land
Acquisition Staff. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No.154
RFA No.664 of 1991 -2 –
dated 11.7.1986 classified the acquired land i.e. Nehri – 265 Kanals 1 Marla,
Barani – 7 Kanals 11 Marlas and Gair Mumkin – 5 Kanals 8 Marla total 278
Kanals. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @
Rs.17,100/- per acre for Nehri, Rs.14,000/- per acre for Barani and
Rs.10,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin.
Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners-
claimants preferred Objections under Section 18 of the Act alleging therein
that the acquired land is close to commercial and dwelling complex and the
price of the land is not less than Rs.80,000/- per acre. It was also alleged
that the acquired land has been divided into two parts, therefore, a loss of
Rs.4000/- has caused to them. The land owners also claimed damages to the
tune of Rs.2000/- as barbed wires with pillars were destroyed and Rs.5000/-
per annum for depositing the earth heaps in the area belonging to them. In
the written statement, it was alleged by the State that compensation has been
assessed as per the prevalent market rate. It was denied that the land
owners-claimants are entitled to recover any amount on account of
segregation of the land or damages to the barbed wire. It was also denied
that any heaps of earth were deposited in the land left over from the
acquisition.
The learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide his order
dated 3.10.1990 after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the
parties awarded compensation and dismissed the reference upholding the
award and awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.4000/- per acre
in respect of all kinds of land in addition to the compensation already
awarded to the land owners.
Sh.Vinod Kumar Kataria, learned counsel for the appellants has
RFA No.664 of 1991 -3 –
vehemently contended that the Reference Court has committed a palpable
error while discarding sale deed Ex.P2 which has been executed in respect
of land measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas for a sum of Rs.13,600/- which comes
to Rs.51,600/- per acre. Learned counsel further submitted that the sale deed
was executed on 15.4.1982 whereas the acquisition in the present case is of
24.8.1984, therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Khan Chand Vs. State of Haryana 2008(2) RCR (Civil)
286, the compensation deserves to be enhanced giving 10% increase for the
gap of two years from the date of sale deed and the date of acquisition and
since the land which is sold vide sale deed Ex.P2, is a small piece of land,
therefore, 40% cut can be applied. In this process, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the compensation would come to Rs.31,000/- per
acre.
As against this, Sh.N.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the State of
Punjab has argued that the sale deed Ex.P2 pertains to village Guru Ki Dhab
whereas the acquisition is of the land of village Matta. He also submits that
there are 6 sale deeds produced by the State namely sale deed Ex.R1
pertaining to land measuring 16 Kanals sold on 31.5.1984 for Rs.33,000/-,
sale deed Ex.R2 in respect of 16 Kanals of land sold for Rs.33,000/- on
29.5.1984 and sale deed Ex.R6 in respect of land measuring 20 Kanals 5
Marlas sold for Rs.42,000/-. So far as other sale deeds Ex.R3, R4 and R6
are concerned, those were not pressed by the learned counsel for the
respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the State of Punjab
that through these three sale deeds Ex.R1, Ex.R2 and Ex.R6, the land
measuring 52 Kanals 5 Marlas was sold for a consideration of
Rs.1,08,000/-. The average of these three sale deeds comes to less than
RFA No.664 of 1991 -4 –
Rs.17,000/- per acre. It is contended by the learned counsel that the
judgment in the case of Khan Chand (supra) is not applicable and the
learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon the sale deeds Ex.R1, Ex.R2
and Ex.R5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record with their assistance.
In so far as sale deed Ex.P2 is concerned that pertains to land
measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas of a different village called Guru Ki Dhab of
course, sale instance of a small piece of land in comparison to the acquired
land. In the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Khan Chand
(supra), the facts were that there was only one sale deed Ex.P1 of the year
1980 pertaining to sale of one Kanal land, the value of which comes to
Rs.1,44,000/-. In the said case, land was situated within the municipal limits
of Kaithal and was merely two furlongs away from the city of Kaithal. Since
there was no other evidence produced in the shape of sale deeds either by
the land owners or by the State, the learned Division Bench relied upon
solitary sale instance and after giving 10% increase for two years, since the
acquisition was of the year 1980, calculated the value of the acquired land
(on the basis of sale instance Ex.P1) to the tune of Rs.1,72,800/- per acre
and after applying cut of 40% on the ground that sale instance Ex.P1 was
pertaining to a small piece of land, awarded Rs.1,03,680/- per acre. The
facts of this case are altogether different from the facts of the aforesaid
judgment because in this case besides sale instance Ex.P2, there are sale
instances which have been produced by the State of Punjab in the shape of
Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 out of which the learned Reference Court has rightly not
taken into consideration sale instances which were post notification and had
RFA No.664 of 1991 -5 –
considered only those sale instances which were in close proximity in time
to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Reference
Court has thus, rightly found the value of the acquired land of village Matta
to which all the sale instances relate was not more than Rs.17,000/- for
Nehri land. However, giving another amount of Rs.4000/- compensation
stood enhanced into three categories i.e. for Nehri land it has been assessed
@ Rs.17,000/-, for Barani @ Rs.14,000/- and for Gair Mumkin it has been
enhanced to Rs.10,000/- per acre besides awarding statutory benefits in
terms of the provisions of the Amended Act.
Sh.Vinod Kumar Kataria, learned counsel for the appellants is
at pains to persuade this Court to take into consideration the fact that out of
the entire acquired land measuring 278 Kanals, land measuring 265 Kanals
1 Marla is Nehri, 7 Kanals 11 Marlas is Barani and only 5 Kanals 8 Marla is
Gair Mumkin. Learned counsel has submitted that since only land
measuring 12 Kanals and 19 Marlas is not Nehri, therefore, this may not be
treated differently and compensation as assessed for the Nehri land be also
awarded for the rest of the land measuring 12 Kanals 19 Marlas.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, I do not find any
merit in the present appeals and therefore, the same are hereby dismissed
without any order as to costs.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
3.12.2008 Judge
Meenu
Refer to reporter - yes