RFA No.1161 of 1992 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
RFA No.1161 of 1992
Date of decision: 14.11.2008
****
State of Punjab
. . . . Appellant
Versus
Isher Singh and others
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)
This judgment shall dispose of 17 appeals, 16 appeals
filed by the State of Punjab and one appeal filed by the landowners
against the award of the Additional District Judge, Patiala dated
26.09.1991. All the appeals are being disposed of together as
common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
Land measuring 6.88 acres situated in village Thuha,
H.B. No.255, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was notified vide
notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (in short ‘the Act’) published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette on
25.3.1988 followed by a notification of declaration issued under
Section 6 of the Act dated 29.4.1988 for a public purpose, namely,
construction of Rajkhand Minor.
The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,
Patiala, Punjab vide his award No.369/P-SYL dated 27.4.1989
RFA No.1161 of 1992 -2-
classified the land into two categories and assessed the
compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi and @ Rs.35,040/-
per acre for Gair Mumkin.
Aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition
Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the
Act which were referred to the Civil Court where they claimed that
award of the Collector is inadequate because the market value at
the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.3 lacs per acre. In the
written statement, it was alleged that the compensation has been
assessed by the Collector after taking into account all factors and
the prevalent market rate. Both the parties led their oral as well as
documentary evidence and after appreciating the same the learned
Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 26.9.1991
re-determined the compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per bigha for Chahi
and @ Rs.9,600/- per bigha for Gair Mumkin, besides awarding
statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act.
Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab, learned counsel for
the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned court
below has erred in ignoring the sale deeds Exs. R1 and R2.
To my mind, these sale deeds Exs.R1 and R2 have been
rightly ignored because the value arising out of these two sale
deeds is less than the value determined by the Collector thus, these
sale deeds cannot be considered by the reference Court in view of
Section 25 of the Act.
Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
court below has relied upon the earlier award Ex.A1 which pertains
to the notification issued on 16.9.1982 and 28.2.1983 in which the
market value of the irrigated land was determined @ Rs.15,000/-
per bigha and for Gair Mumkin @ Rs.6,000/- per bigha. The court
RFA No.1161 of 1992 -3-
below while relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of
“Inder Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 1988(2) PLR 190 allowed 12%
per year increase and for a gap of 5 years and 25 days from the
earlier acquisition of 16.9.1982, 60% increase has been given. The
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Inder Singh’s
case (supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of
“Mehtab Singh vs. State of Punjab” 1995(2) PLR 47.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the record with his assistance.
There is no dispute that Inder Singh’s judgment (supra)
has been overruled in Mehtab Singh’s case (supra) and it has been
held that an increase of 12% is not statutory. But in a recent
judgment, the Supreme Court, in the case of “Special Land
Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa
Sahib” AIR 2002 SC 1558, allowed 10% increase for every year for
the gap of two notifications.
In view of the above, the judgment of the reference
Court is modified only to the extent that the appellant shall be now
entitled to 10% increase in stead of 12%, as awarded by the
reference Court. The present appeals are disposed of with the above
modification.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
14.11.2008 JUDGE
vivek