RFA No.2835 of 1992 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2835 of 1992
Date of Decision:16.12.2008
State of Punjab --Appellant
vs.
Sarup Singh and others --Respondentxs.
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Preseent: 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 nine Regular Frist Appeals
bearing RFA Nos. 2835, 2836, 2837,2838, 2839, 2840,2841,2842 and
2843 of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved
therein.
An area of 4.03 acres situated in village Dadumajra,
Hadbast No.246, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was notified under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,’ the Act’) dated
9/10.3.1987 followed by a notification of declaration under Section 6
of the Act, for public purpose, namely for the construction of
Bohakheri distribitory from R.D.0 to 5342 kilometers.
The Land Acquisition Collector S.Y.L.Canal Project Patiala
RFA No.2835 of 1992 2
(for short, the Collector) found the actual area under acquisition to be
3.81 acre instead of 4.03 acre and vide his award No.218/P-SYL dated
10.9.1987, compensation was assessed as under:-
Sr. No. Kind of land Area Rate per acre
B B
1 Chahi 18 1 Rs.60,000/-
2. Gair Mumkin 0 5 Rs.35,000/-
The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector.
They filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed
compensation @ Rs.2 lacs per acre.
The State of Punjab filed written statement refuting the
claim of the landowner-claimants on the ground that fair and adequate
cosmpensation has already been granted by the Collector.
The parties to the lis led their evidence. The claimants
examined Sahib Ram as AW-1, Darshan Singh Patwari as AW-2 Sarup
Singh as AW-3 and also relied upon copies of previous awards Exs.
A-3, A-4 and A-5. In reply, the State of Punjab tendered copies of sale
deeds Exs. R-1 and R-2. The learned d Reference Court, while relying
upon the previous award Ex.A-5 pertaining to village Naraina assessed
the compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- per acre for Chahi land and
Rs.55,000/-per acre for Gair Mumkin land besides awarding statutory
benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act.
Mr.N.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant-State of
Punjab has contended that the learned Reference Court has erred in
relying upon copy of award Ex.A-5 pertaining to village Naraina since
that village (Naraina) is at a distance fo about 8/9 kilometers from
RFA No.2835 of 1992 3
village Dadumajra.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the record with his asistance.
It has come in the evidence that lands of village Dadumajra
and Polwal adjoin the land of village Naraina. Moreover, plan Ex.A-1
shows that the land of village Dadumajra is adjacent to the land of
village Naraina. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the
appellant from which it can be inferred that distance between the
villages Naraina and Dadumajra is 8/9 kilometers.
In view of the above finding on record that land of village
Naraina adjoins the land of village Dadumajra, I do not find any error
in the award of the learned Reference Court dated 1.2.1992 which is
based upon Ex. A-5 for the purpose of determining the compensation
in the present cases.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the present appeals
and the same are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.
December 16,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge