JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The Punjab Government on 7.3.1989 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) intending to acquire, 78 acres of land in village Hazipur, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The acquisition was made for public purpose, namely, setting up of a new mandi township at Phagwara. In furtherance thereto a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.10.1979 and the Government took possession of the land in question. Upon hearing the claimants, the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 1.10.1982 awarded the compensation of Rs. 32,000/- per acres i.e. approximately Rs. 154/- per marla to the claimants. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. All the references giving rise to 6 regular first appeals disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment dated 29.7.1989 and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants to Rs. 200/- per marla, for the lands falling within 50 yards of the main road leading from Phagwara to Hoshiarpur; for the remaining land, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was maintained. Still being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the claimants have impugned the judgment before this Court and have prayed for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per marla in their grounds of appeal.
2. Exhibits A7 to A24 were the sale instances produced on record by the claimants in addition to leading oral evidence. Ex.A1 to A4 were the site plans which were proved by AW1, Patwari who had prepared them.
3. The respondents had produced on record the site plain EX.R1 and copies of sale deeds Ex.R2 to R11. Based upon the above evidence the learned Additional District Judge had granted the afore-stated compensation to the limited class of the claimants. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Manmohan Sarin, appearing for the claimants, at the very outset, stated that though according to the law and evidence produced on record claim for Rs. 5,000/- per marla of his client was justified but he is not pressing for the said claim and in view of the judgments of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India he would restrict his claim for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- per marla.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab argued that based upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.P State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. etc. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors. etc., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2600 and 2625, respectively, the sale instances rendered in evidence of the parties particularly the claimants are not admissible in evidence. He also contended that the judgments of this Court in the case relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant was not indicating the correct amount of compensation which ought to be granted to the claimants. He, infact, prayed for dismissal of the appeals while maintaining the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
5. In view of the course of action that I propose to adopt, determination of rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties may not be necessary.
6. In R.F.A. No. 521 of 1985 Charan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.S. Tiwana had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per marla with statutory benefits to the claimant in relation to the same award and similarly situated land in Kapurthala vide judgment dated 31.8.1988. This judgment was followed by the Hon’ble Judge in another case being R.F.A. No. 89 of 1985 titled as Gulzar v. State of Punjab and Anr., and the claimants were again awarded the same amount. The State of Punjab had preferred a Special Leave Petition against both these judgment amongst others. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 1.2.1995. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as under:-
“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1. The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Agril. Deptt. New Secretariat Building, Chandigarh.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector Colonization, Punjab, Chandigarh, S.C.O. No. 2437, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
Versus
1. Chanan Singh son of Sh. Boota Singh s/o Gulab Singh r/o H. No. 65-C, Model Town, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
In S.L.P. No. 147 of 1989.
2. Gulzar alias Gulzara Ram s/o Khema alias Khema Ram r/o Palhai Gate Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
In S.L.P. No. 148 of 1989.
3. Nanak Singh son of Bela Singh son of Khusal Singh r/o, c/o Chadha Transport Co. G.T. Road, Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala.
In S.L.P. No. 149 of 1989.
CORAM
Hon’ble The Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.P. Singh
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujata V. Manohar For the petitioner Mr. G.K. Bansal, Advocate.
The petition for special leave to appeal and the Application for Stay above mentioned being called on for hearing before the Court on the 1st day of February, 1995 upon hearing counsel for the petitioners herein THIS COURT DOTH ORDER THAT PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL above-mentioned be and is hereby dismissed and consequently this Court’s order dated 27th February, 1989 made in Civil Misc. Petitions Nos.399 to 401 of 1989 be and is hereby vacated. AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER THAT THIS ORDER be punctually observed and carried in to execution by all concerned. Witness the Hon’ble Shri Aziz Mushabbar Ahmadi, Chief Justice of India at the Supreme Court, New Delhi, dated this the 1st day of February, 1995.”
7. It is clear from the above order that Hon’ble Apex Court has affirmed the extent of compensation awardable to the claimants to the extent of Rs. 1,000/-per marla, for the lands, as awarded by the High Court in the cases of Chanan Singh and Gulzar (supra), there is no dispute to the fact that the land has been acquired by a common notification for a common purpose, from the same vicinity and revenue estate of the village. Their allegations are in no way different-whether certain sale deeds could or could not have been admitted into evidence in the case of Chanan Singh (supra) or whether the sales instances were not admissible on the ground that they related to small pieces of plots. No element of reduction was applied while awarding the compensation is the argument which would be of no avail to the State in the case. If this Court was to consider the possibility of awarding the original amount claimed by the claimant in the memorandum of appeal i.e. to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- per marla, these questions may need to be looked into. But in the present case where the matter stands already concluded upto the highest Court of the land, I see no reason for this Court to entertain such controversies for academic purposes. This Court is bound to grant relief to the claimant which has been allowed by the previous Benches of this Court and even affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel appearing for appellant-claimant has already stated upon instructions from his client who was present in Court, that they do not press their claim beyond Rs. 1,000/- per marla.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory Chandigarh, J.T. 1992(5) S.C. 414 has stressed the need to avoid application of conjectures and surmises while awarding compensation in land acquisition cases and that such matters require to be determined in accordance with law. During the course of hearing it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab that the learned District Judge in subsequent cases following the judgment in the case of Chanan Singh (supra) has awarded the compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per marla and the State has not even preferred appeals against the said judgments. In other words, the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per marla awarded by the High Court has attained finality in relation to the same land and same notification.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances more particularly keeping the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in mind the appeal of the claimant is allowed to the extent that he would be entitled to enhancement of compensation for acquisition of his land, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per marla with statutory benefits accruing to him under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 21 of the Land Acquisition Act.
10. The appeals is partly accepted. The claimant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would also be entitled to proportionate costs.