R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989
Date of Decision: November 04, 2008
State of Punjab
.....Appellant
vs.
Kulwant Singh and others
.....Respondents
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr. N.S.Pawar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellant.
Mr.Amit K. Singh, Advocate.
for the respondents
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall disposed of 8 Regular First Appeals No. 2313
to 2319 and 2793 of 1989 as common questions of law and facts are
involved in these cases.
An area of 4.62 acres situated in village Bhatris, H.B.No. 278,
Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala was notified under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 18.9.1985 followed by
notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated
24.9.1985, for the public purpose namely, for the construction of SYL canal.
Although the area notified under Section 6 was 4.62 acres but the actual
R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -2-
measurement carried out at the spot was found to be 4.18 acres, which was
marginal and ignored. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal,
Punjab(for short the Collector), vide his award No. 122/P-SYL dated
25.5.1986 awarded compensation of the acquired land by dividing the same
into two categories (i) Chahi @ of Rs. 62,000/- per acre and (ii) Gair
Mumkin @ of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The land owners filed objections
under Section 18 of the Act and inter alia pleaded that the market value of
the acquired land was not less than Rs. 2 lacs per acre at the time of
acquisition. The acquired land had high potentiality as it used to yield three
crops in a year. The acquired land is divided into two parts which fact has
not been considered by the Collector. In the reply, it was alleged that
adequate and just compensation has already been awarded by the Collector.
The land was acquired for widening of the canal. Earlier, the land was
acquired for SYL canal project in the year 1984 for which compensation @
of Rs. 49,500/- per acre was awarded and since the present acquisition is of
the year 1985 , Rs. 62,000/- has been awarded keeping in view the
escalation in the prices.
Both the parties to the lis led their respective evidence. The
Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 1.6.1989, re-
determined the compensation @ of Rs. 80,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs.
53,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 19,950/- per acre for Gair Mumkin
land.
Sh. Amit K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the land
owners/claimants has argued that Reference court has relied upon decision
Exhibit R-4, pertaining to the acquisition dated 14.10.1982 of the land of
revenue estate of village Bhatris for the public purpose for construction of
R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -3-
SYL canal, in which compensation @ of 60,000/- per acre for Chahi land,
Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Gair
Mumkin land was maintained and after giving an increase of 12% every
year for a period of two years after following the decision in the case of
Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1988 SLJ 501 awarded compensation at
the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 53,000/- for Barani land
and Rs. 19,950/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. It is contended by the
counsel for the land owners/claimants that Reference court has erred in not
considering the sale deed dated 5.11.1984 (Ex. A-6) of 01 kanal of land of
village Hulka, which was sold for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- which comes to
Rs. 1,28,000/- per acre. Both the villages Hulka and Bhatiras adjoins each
other. On the other hand, Ms. N.S.Pawar, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, has contended that the court below has committed a palpable error
in giving 12% increase every year in view of the decision of this Court in
Inder Singh’s case (supra), which has been overruled by the Supreme
Court in the case of Mehtab Singh and others vs. State of Haryana 1995
(2) PLR 47. It is also submitted by the counsel for the State that sale deed
dated 5.11.1984, Ex. A-6 of village Hulka was also considered by this court
in R.F.A.No. 1296 of 1986 titled as State of Punjab and others. vs.
Nachhatar Singh and others decided on 11.3.1987 (Ex. R-4).
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have given my
thoughtful consideration to their respective contentions.
It is undisputed that the land of village Bhatris was earlier
under acquisition on 14.10.1982 for the same purpose of construction of
SYL canal. The Land Acquisition Collector after classifying the acquired
land into three categories, awarded compensation @ of Rs.49,550/- per acre
R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -4-
for Chahi land, Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 10,000/- per
acre for Gair Mumkin land, which was further enhanced by the Reference
court as Chahi @ of Rs. 60,000/- per acre, Barani @ of
Rs. 40,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre.
The said acquisition of 14.10.1982 was the subject matter of appeal at the
hands of the State of Punjab in R.F.A.No. 1296 of 1986 titled as State of
Punjab and others vs. Nachhatar Singh and others in which sale deed dated
5.11.1984 (Ex. A-6) pertaining to village Hulka was produced as Exhibit A-
1. In the said case all the sale deeds were considered including the sale
deed of village Hulka and after that the award of the Reference court was
upheld maintaining the compensation awarded by it and the appeals filed by
both the land owners/claimants and the State of Punjab were dismissed.
Thus, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the
counsel for the land owners/claimants in respect of consideration of sale
deed Exhibit A-6. Insofar as the contention of counsel for the State is
concerned, it has to be accepted that the decision relied upon in Inder
Singh’s case (supra) by the court below for the purpose of giving 12%
increase over the compensation assessed for the acquisition dated
14.10.1982 in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Nachhatar Singh
and others (Ex. R-4), cannot be relied upon since the same has been over
ruled in Mehtab Singh’ case (supra). However, the Supreme Court has
now in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v.
Mohd,. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib AIR 2002 SC 1558 held that in view of
the escalation of prices of land, the court could take judicial notice and
awarded an increase of 10% for every subsequent year. Thus, in view of the
above, the appeals filed by the State of Punjab are allowed only to the
R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -5-
extent that the claimant/land owners shall be entitled to 10% increase
instead of 12% increase every year. Except for this modification the award
of the reference court shall remain the same .
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
4th November, 2008
paramjit