RFA No.844 of 1993 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No.844 of 1993
Decided on January 19,2009.
Chanan Singh --Appellant
vs.
State of Punjab -- Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Gurnam Singh,Advocate,for the appellant (s).
Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the respondent(s)
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of seven Regular First Appeals
bearing Nos. 844, 845, 846,847 of 1993, 2 and 3 of 1994 and 3728 of 1993,
filed by the claimants against the award of Additional District Judge,
Patiala,dated 11.11.1992. Since identical question of law and facts are
involved in these appeals, therefore, they are being decided by this common
judgment. The facts are taken from RFA No.844 of 1993.
Vide notification dated 09.3.1987, issued under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,’the Act’), followed by a notification
of declaration of the same date issued under Section 6 of the Act, land
measuring 12.94 acres situated in village Mehmadpur was acquired for the
public purpose, namely for the construction of ‘Sales- Tax Barrier’ at ,
Shambhu.
The Land Acquisition Collector, Rajpura, (for short,’the
RFA No.844 of 1993 2
Collector’), vide his award dated 09.7. 1987 awarded compensation for
Chahi land (measuring 15 bighas-02 biswas) @ Rs.40,000/- per acre and
for Barani land (47 bighas-02 biswas) @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre, besides
awarding all statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended
Act.
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. 2,00,000/- per acre, on the ground that the land in
question is situated near the Punjab and Haryana Border and being adjacent
to the G.T.Road has possessed high potentiality to be developed into a
commercial/residential area. They also pleaded that their land has been
severed which has caused damage due to loss of income.
In the written statement filed by the State of Punjab, the claim of the
landowners was refuted and it was pleaded that due compensation has
already been awarded after taking into consideration all the relevant factors
including location and potentiality.
Both the parties led their respective evidence. Besides oral
evidence, the landowners relied upon following sale deeds:-
– – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — –
Sr.. Exhibit Date of sale Area Considera Rate per Village No. B B -tion acre
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — –
1.Ex.A-5 22.12.1986 0- 05 Rs.5000/- Rs.96,000/- Mehmadpur
2.Ex.A-6 8.8.1986 0-05 Rs.5000/- Rs.96,000/- -do-
3.Ex.A-7 6.2.1990 0-06 Rs.12,500/ Rs.2,00,000/- Rajgarh
4.Ex.A-8 20.9.1991 0-10 Rs.37,500/- Rs.3,60,000/- Mehmadpur
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – — – – – — – – – – — – – – — – — – — – — — – —
The respondent-State of Punjab relied upon the sale deeds which are
RFA No.844 of 1993 3
reproduced below:-
– – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — –
Sr.Exhibit Date of sale Area Considera Rate per Village No. B B -tion acre
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – —
1.Ex.R-1 05.8.1987 2- 2 Rs.6000/- Rs.12,728/- Mehmadpur
2.Ex.R-2 8.5.1987 0-18 Rs.3000/- Rs.16,032/- -do-
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – — – – – — – – – – — – – – — – — – — – — — – —
The learned Reference Court rejected the sale deeds Ex.A-7
and A-8 on the ground that the same pertain to a period more than two
years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale
deeds Exs. A-5 and A-6 were ignored on the ground that not only these sale
deeds relate to a small piece of land, but also these were not found to be
genuine because consideration was recorded to have been paid earlier. The
learned Reference Court had thus applied guess work in respect of
potentiality of the land and awarded 20% more over and above the value of
the acquired land assessed by the Collector and awarded compensation for
Chahi land @ Rs.50,000/- per acre and for Barani land @ Rs. 25,000/-
per acre. The learned Reference Court also referred to various khasra
numbers which were severed from the land due to acquisition. The said
khasra numbers are as under:-
Khasra No. Total area Area acquired
570 5-18 2- 2
574 4-0 1-14
581 4-0 2- 2
582 4-0 3-15
566 4-0 0-13
565 4-0 2-18
RFA No.844 of 1993 4
On the either side of the road severance of land of Chanan
Singh petitioner in case No. 734-T/90 is as under:-
Kh.No. Total area Area acquired
– – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – — – – – — – – – – – — – – – – – – — — – – – – – –
1035/313 3-19 3-09
Severance of land of Kartar Singh petitioner in case No. 735-
T/90 is as under:
Kh.No. Total area Area acquired 316 4-0 2-05 1037/315 2-0 1-03 In this regard, the learned Reference Court allowed 25% severance charges of the market value of the acquired land. Besides, the learned
Reference Court held that the claimants shall not be entitled to solatium
and interest @ 12% per annum over the amount of severance.
Mr.Gurnam Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has vehemently contended that the learned Reference Court has committed
an error while ignoring sale deeds Exs.A-5 and A-6. It is submitted that it
is not a ground to hold the sale deed not to be genuine if it is recited in the
sale deed that the amount of consideration has already been taken. The
learned counsel has relied upon the sale deeds Exs. A-5 and A-6 dated
22.12.1986 and 08.8.1986 respectively wherein both the sale deeds of 5
biswas of land each has been sold for Rs. 5000/- which comes to
Rs.96,000/- per acre. The said sale deeds are in respect of land of village
Mehmadpur from where the land in question has been presently acquired.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the learned
RFA No.844 of 1993 5
Reference Court has committed an error by awarding severance charges
only to the extent of 25% of the market value,while this Court has awarded
severance charge of 50% in judgments in the cases of State of Haryana v.
Rajinder Kumar 2000 (1) All India Land Acquisition & Compensation
Cases, 360, Punjab State v. Gurbachan Singh and others 1988 P.L.J.490,
Smt.Narinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab and others 1980 P.L.R,473,
State of Punjab through Collector, Hoshiarpur and another v. Gopal Singh
(2002-2) P.L.R.843 and State of Punjab through Collector, Hoshiarpur v.
Radha Krishan 1989 All India Land Acquisition and compensation
Cases,667, Tehal Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and another
1987 All India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases 491 and Bishan
Dass v. State of Punjab 1997 (2) P.L.J. 416.
As against this, learned State Counsel has contended that if
the sale deeds are found to be genuine even then the same cannot be taken
into consideration because it pertain to a small piece of land and cannot be
set up as an example for the purpose of reassessing the compensation
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record with their assistance.
The learned reference Court has erred in ignoring the sale
deeds Exs.A-5 and A-6, pertaining to the same village and are prior to the
date of notification, on the ground that since the sale consideration has been
paid earlier by the vendor to the vendee, therefore, they are not genuine sale
deeds. This observation is totally irrelevant. However, I am in agreement
with the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State that the land
in Exs.A-5 and A-6 pertains to a small piece of land of 5 biswas only vis-
a-vis 12.94 acres of acquired land, therefore, normal cut of 1/3rd should
RFA No.844 of 1993 6
be applied. Thus, after applying a cut of 1/3rd in the value of sale deeds
Ex. A-5 and A-6, it comes to Rs.64,000/-. In my view, the
appellants/landowners are entitled to compensation to the extent of
Rs.64,000/- for Chahi land.
Reverting back to the second argument of the learned counsel
for the appellant that severance charges allowed by the learned Reference
Court @ 25% of the market value of the un-acquired land should have been
50%. I am in full agreement with the argument raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants that in view of the decision of this Court
rendered in the cases of State of Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar 2000 (1)
All India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases, 360, Punjab State v.
Gurbachan Singh and others 1988 P.L.J.490, Smt.Narinder Kaur v. The
State of Punjab and others 1980 P.L.R,473, State of Punjab through
Collector, Hoshiarpur and another v. Gopal Singh (2002-2) P.L.R.843
and State of Punjab through Collector, Hoshiarpur v. Radha Krishan 1989
All India Land Acquisition and compensation Cases,667, Tehal Singh and
others v. The State of Punjab and another 1987 All India Land
Acquisition & Compensation Cases 491 and Bishan Dass v. State of
Punjab 1997 (2) P.L.J. 416. (supra), severance charges has to be awarded @
50% of the market value of the un-acquired land instead of 25%. In view
of above, the finding of the learned Reference Court on issue No.2 is
modified and the appellants are held entitled to the severance charges @
50% instead of 25% as given by the learned Reference Court.
With this modification in the judgment of the learned Reference
Court, the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants are allowed. They
are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.64,000/- per acres from the date of
RFA No.844 of 1993 7
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, besides all the statutory
benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act. They shall also be
entitled to severance charges @ 50% instead of 25% of the land which has
been severed to due to acquisition. The appellants are also held entitled to
the costs of the appeals.
January 19,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge