RFA No.1780 of 1991 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1780 of 1991
Date of Decision: 31.1.2009
State of Punjab and others
..Appellants.
Vs.
Bawa Singh and another
...Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL)
This common judgment shall dispose of 4 Regular First
Appeals bearing Nos.1780 to 1783 of 1991 as identical question of law and
facts are involved therein. These appeals have been filed by the State of
Punjab against the award of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dated
5.3.1991.
Land situated in village Kathlaur was acquired on 7/12.7.1988
with the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short `the Act’) followed by a notification of declaration
issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 19.1.1989. The Land Acquisition
Collector (for short `the Collector’) vide his award dated 31.3.1989,
awarded the compensation as under :
i) Barani Rs.6,000/-
ii) Salab Rs.3000/-
iii)Salab River Rs.3000/-
RFA No.1780 of 1991 -2 -
iv)Banjar Jadid Rs.2000/-
v) Gair Mumkin abadi Rs.1500/-
vi)Gair Mumkin river Rs.1500/-
The aggrieved land owners were not satisfied with the award of
the Collector, as such they filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act,
which were referred by the Collector to the Civil Court for adjudication.
Both the parties to the lis led their oral as well as documentary evidence.
After taking into account the evidence led by the parties, the learned
Reference Court vide impugned award dated 5.3.1991 granted
compensation @ Rs.13,000/- per acre for land recorded as Barani, Salab and
Salab river in the revenue record and Rs.10,000/- per acre for other kinds of
land. Besides the learned Reference Court also awarded all statutory
benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act.
Sh.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab has vehemently contended that
the Reference Court has committed an error of law while ignoring sale
deeds tendered by the State Ex.R2 to Ex.R9 although he admits that value of
the sale deeds is less than the award of the Collector.
In view of this fact, the aforesaid sale deeds in my view, cannot
be taken into consideration and have been rightly ignored by the Reference
court in view of Section 25 of the Amended Act.
No other point has been raised in these appeals. Thus, the
present appeals are found to be devoid of any merit and are dismissed
without any order as to costs.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
31.1.2009 Judge
Meenu