RFA No. 741 of 1992 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No. 741 of 1992
Decided on February 10,2009.
The State of Punjab --Appellant
vs.
Surjit 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 fifteen Regular First
Appeals bearing Nos. 741,742, 743, 744, 745, 746, 747 and 748 of
1992 filed by the State of Punjab and 257,258, 259,260,261,268 and
1184 of 1992, filed by the landowners/claimants. Since identical
question of law and facts are involved there in, therefore, these are
being disposed of by a common judgment. The fact are being taken
from RFA No. 741 of 1992.
Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894, (for short,’the Act’) dated 7.10.1985 followed by
a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, which
was published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette on 10.10.1985, land
RFA No. 741 of 1992 2
measuring 39.01 situated in the revenue estate of Village Kajouli,
Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired for public purpose, namely
for the construction of S.Y.L.Canal.
The Land Acquisition Collector, S.Y.L.Canal Project
Patiala (for short, the Collector), vide his award No.151/R-SYL dated
26.7.1986 awarded compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.
72,500/- per acre for Chahi land; @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for Barani;
@ Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim and @ Rs.40,000/- per
acre for Gair Mumkin. Besides, the Collector also announced the
award in respect of all the statutory benefits in terms of the
provisions of the Amended Act.
The landowners/claimants were not satisfied with the
award of the collector, therefore, they filed objections under Section
18 of the Act, which were contested by the respondent-State.
In order to substantiate their claim, the landowners relied
upon a copy of judgment of this Court dated 31.8.1989 delivered in
RFA No. 2807 of 1987 (Ex.P2) pertaining to the land acquired in
the revenue estate of village Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura, District
Patiala, whereby the value of the land abutting on either side of
the road connecting Rajpura with Chandigarh via Banur and Zirakpur
up to the depth of 150 feet @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, @ Rs.1 lac
per acre for chahi and Rs.60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin was
assessed.
The claimants also relied upon an agreement dated
27.6.1986 (Mark A) between the Chief Minister of Punjab and the
Members of the Action Committee according to which value of
acquired chahi land was decided not to be assessed less than
RFA No. 741 of 1992 3
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the District Judge, Ropar, vide his award
dated 16.8.1991 found the claimants/landowners entitled to
compensation for acquired land @ Rs. one lac per acre for Chahi
land; Rs.75,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs. 65,000/- per acre for
Banjar Qadim land and Rs.60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.
Still aggrieved against the award of the Reference Court,
both State of Punjab as well as the landowners/claimants have
come up in the aforesaid appeals before this court.
Mr. N.S.Pawar, Addl.A.G.Punjab, appearing for the State,
has vehemently contended that the learned District Judge,Ropar, has
wrongly relied upon agreement Mark ‘A’ as the same has not been
executed in terms of the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution
of India and argued that judgment Ex.P-2 cannot be relied upon as
it relates to Khera Gajju, whereas in the present case, acquired land
is of village Kajouli, District Ropar. It is also contended that since the
acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes and no
construction activities were going on near it, therefore, it had no
potential for being used for commercial and residential purposes.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the
landowners/claimants.
I have heard the learned counsel for the State of
Punjab and have perused the record with his assistance.
Agreement Mark ‘A’ which has already been accepted
by this Court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Surjan Singh
and others 1990 (1) P.L.R.278 while deciding a case of village
Polwal held that it is a relevant piece of evidence. In the said case, it
has been held that agreement entered into between the then Chief
RFA No. 741 of 1992 4
Minister of Punjab and the Members of the Action Committee, can be
relied upon by the Court below for the purpose of assessing the
compensation so far as SYL Canal is concerned. Therefore, I do
not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the
State that agreement Mark ‘A’ has been wrongly relied upon by the
Court below.
No other point has been urged before me by the learned
counsel for the State in these appeals.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in
the appeals filed by the State of Punjab and also in the appeals filed
by the landowners/claimants. Therefore, all the appeals are hereby
dismissed without any order as to costs.
February 10,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge