RFA No.630 of 1993 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No.630 of 1993
Decided on November 17,2008.
State of Punjab ---Appellant.
vs.
Bala Singh --- Respondent
Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the appellant
None for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
This judgment shall dispose of 13 cases i.e. RFA Nos.
630,3534, 631,632, 633,634,635,636,638,3535, 3536,3537 and 3538 all of
1993, filed by the claimants/landowners as well as the State of Punjab,as
common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
The agricultural land measuring 4.46 acres situated in the
revenue estate of village Dharamgarh, Hadbast No. 120, Tehsil Rajpura,
District Patiala, was proposed to be acquired by the State of Punjab for the
construction of Katha Kheri minor vide notification issued on 29.2.1988
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,’the Act’)
RFA No.630 of 1993 2
followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act,
on 21.3.1988.
The Land Acquisition Collector (SYL), Canal Project
Punjab,Patiala,vide his award No. 363/P-SYL dated 21.4.1989, classified
the acquired land into three categories and determined the compensation as
under:-
Class of land Area Rate per acre Chahi : 19B-19B Rs.60,000/- Barani: 0.19 Rs.50,080/- Gair Mumkin: 0-6 Rs.35,000/-
The land owners/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act in
which it was pleaded that value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2
lacs per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
Act and had also claimed Rs.10,000/- as damages to the crop and
Rs.50,000/- for severance charges. In the written statement, it was pleaded
by the State of Punjab that land in all the cases was Chahi and the Land
Acquisition Collector has awarded adequate compensation after considering
all the facts including nature, location and potential value of the acquired
land.
Both the parties led their respective evidence. Surinderpal
Singh Patwari Halqa, Kutakheri appeared as AW1 and produced Aksh
Shajra Ex.AW1. He stated that land of village Mandiana and village
Dharamgarh adjoins each other and land of both the villages are of the same
quality. Gurdev Singh claimant appeared as AW2, who stated that
distributory for which the land has been acquired was to start from SYL
canal at village Mandiana which would pass through village Dharamgarh,
RFA No.630 of 1993 3
then to village Sanaulian and thereafter to other villages. He also deposed
that land of village Mandiana was acquired for the construction of aforesaid
distributory and land of villages Dharamgrh and Mandiana acquired for the
distributory have the same potentiality. On the other hand, the respondent-
State examined Hazura Singh Patwari from the office of Land Acquisition
Collector, SYL, Patiala as RW1, who produced Aks-Masavi of the acquired
land as Ex.R1 and the sale deeds of the acquired land as Ex R2 to Ex. R4.
In the cross examination, this witness stated that village Mandiana adjoins
village Dharamgarh and the main SYL canal passed through Mandiana
whereas land of village Dharamgarh was acquired for distributory. The land
of village Mandiana and that of Dharamgarh are of almost equal value and
potentiality. It was admitted that the Collector while preparing the award
did not rely upon the sale deeds Ex. R2 and Ex.R3.
The learned Reference Court has referred to one sale deed
relied upon by the respondent-State of Punjab dated 13.7.1987 of village
Dharamgarh which is pertaining to land measuring 8 bighas 2 biswas by
which the land has been sold for Rs.23704/- per acre and also two other sale
deeds dated 08.5.1987 and 30.9.1987 of village Sohoron which is an
adjoining village to village Dharamgarh by which the land has been sold
@ Rs.19302/- and Rs. 36000/- per acre respectively. The learned Court
below found that the sale deeds were pertaining to Chahi land and were
fetching the maximum amount @ Rs. 36,000/- per acre whereas the Land
Acquisition Collector had already awarded Rs.60,000/- per acre. The
learned Reference Court relied upon the judgment Ex.A2 of this Court dated
3.11.1988 rendered in the case of Chetan Singh vs. State of Punjab in
respect of land situated in village Mandiana acquired in the year 1982 in
RFA No.630 of 1993 4
which the following rates were determined:-
Chahi @ Rs 15,000/- per bigha
Rausli @ Rs. 7500/- per bigha
Gair Mumkin@ Rs.6000/- per bigha.
The learned Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence
brought on record, found that the land of village Mandiana and that of
village Dharamgarh are adjoining each other and were acquired for the
purpose of distributory connecting SYL canal. It was also found that the
land of village Mandiana was acquired in the year 1982 vide notification
dated 13.12.1982,whereas land of village Dharamgarh was acquired in the
month of March,1988, but no increase was allowed @ 12% per annum from
1982 to 1988 on the ground that from the three sale deeds of village
Dharamgarh and two sale deeds of village Sohoron of the year 1987, no
rising trend in the market value was noticed therefrom and while relying
upon the award of the High Court passed in RFA No.829 of 1986 Chetan
Singh vs. State of Punjab, compensation of the acquired land was
redetermined by the learned Reference Court as under:-
Chahi: Rs.72000/- per acre
Barani:Rs.50080/- per acre
Gair Mumkin:Rs.35000/- per acre.
Since the reference Court has based its award on the previous
award of the High Court passed in RFA No.829 of 1986 Chetan Singh vs.
State of Punjab, pertaining to the same village Dharamgarh, learned
counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality in the award of
the learned Reference Court nor any one has put in appearance on behalf of
RFA No.630 of 1993 5
the landowners/claimants in order to claim compensation more than the
award of the learned Reference Court.
In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in
the appeals filed by the State of Punjab or in the appeals filed by the
landowners/claimants. Therefore, maintaining the award of the learned
Reference Court, the appeals filed by the State of Punjab as well as the
landowners/claimants are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
November 17,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge