RFA No.1909 of 1991 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No. 1909 of 1991
Decided on November 04,2008.
The State of Punjab and another
--- Appellants
vs.
Hardev Singh and others
---Respondent
Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab,
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
This judgment shall dispose of R.F.A Nos. 1909,1910 and X-
Obj No.43-CI of 1998,1911,1912 and X-Obj No.40-CI of 1998,1913,1914
and X-Obj No. 32-CI of 1998,1915 and X-Obj No.34-CI of 1998,1916 and
X-Obj No.41-CI of 1998,1917 and X-Obj No.36-CI of 1998,1918,1919 and
X-Obj No.38-CI of 1998,1920,1921,1922 and X-Obj No.37-CI of
1998,1923,1924,1925,1926 and X-Obj No.39-CI of 1998,1927 and X-Obj
No.33-CI of 1998,1928 and X-Obj No.44-CI of 1998,1929,1930 and X- Obj
No.35-CI of 1998 and 1931 all of 1991 as the common questions of law and
facts are involved in all these appeals.
RFA No.1909 of 1991 2
Land situated in the revenue estate of village Dadhi,Tehsil and
District Ropar, measuring 24.82 acre was notified under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short,’the Act’),dated 13.12.1984 followed
by declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 24.12.1984, for public
purpose namely, for the construction of SYL. Canal. The Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 27972/- per acre for the acquired
land which was gair-mumkin. Aggrieved with the inadequacy of
compensation, the claimants/landowners filed objections under Section 18
of the Act, which were referred to the Civil Court where the claimants had
prayed for higher compensation. On the other hand, the appellants herein
defended the validity of the award of the Collector and alleged that
compensation awarded is adequate, fair and reasonable and does not call for
further enhancement.
The claimants examined PW-1 Pritam Singh, who tendered sale
deeds Ex.P-1 to P-4 and a copy of the agreement mark A. On the other hand,
the respondents/appellants herein examined Joginder Singh, Kanungo as
RW-1 and tendered sale deeds Exs. R-1,R-2 and Akash-Sajra Ex. R-3.
After appreciating the evidence brought on file, the learned
District Judge, Ropar, vide his award dated 1.4.1991 reassessed the market
value of the acquired land @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre.
The State of Punjab has preferred the aforesaid appeals against
the award of the learned District Judge, Ropar dated 1.4.1991.
Mr.N.S.Pawar, learned Addl. A.G. Punjab, appearing for the
appellant-State has contended that the Court below has committed palpable
error in enhancing the compensation at a higher rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre
RFA No.1909 of 1991 3
as compared to the prevailing market rate.
No body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents/claimants.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-State and have
perused the record with his assistance.
The claimants examined PW-1 Pritam Singh, who deposed that
he is Lamberdar of village Dadhi. Village Hardo Nimoh is at a distance of
4/5 kilometers from his village. There is only Nangal Hydel canal in
between his village and Ropar-Nangal Highway. He deposed that Kiratpur
town is at a distance of about one kilometer from his village Dadhi. He
further deposed that he is the witness to sale deeds Ex. P-1 to P-4. Village
Dadhi falls in District Ropar and village Hardo Nimoh is also in District
Ropar. The land situated in village Hardo Nimoh was also acquired for
construction of SYL canal. He stated that villages Anantpur, Kotli, Pathreri,
kajauli ,Ballan etc. fall in Ropar District and the department had awarded
the compensation for the land acquired in these villages @ not less than
Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. He also deposed that there was an agreement with
the Chief Minister,Punjab and the claimants. Besides the oral evidence, the
claimants have tendered sale deeds Exs. P-1 to P-4 which are tabulated
below:-
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – —
Ex. Village Area Date of sale Consideration Average price
P-1 Dodhi 10marlas 11.9.1985 Rs.5000/- Rs.80,000/-per acre
P-2 Hardo 4marlas 20.1.986 Rs.10000/- Rs.4,00,000/-per acre
Nimoh
P-3 do- 4marlas 22.11.1985 Rs.11500/- Rs.4,60,000/- per acre
P-4 do- 6marlas 14.5.1986 Rs.16800/- Rs.4,48,000/- per acre
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The learned Civil Court had observed that the aforesaid sale
RFA No.1909 of 1991 4
deeds cannot be taken into consideration because the sale has taken place
after issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section
6 of the Act. However, acquisition is of 13.12.1984, whereas Ex P-1 is the
sale deed dated 11.9.1985 of village Dadhi, by which the land has been sold
for Rs.80,000/- per acre which shows upward trend. Even Exs.P-2 to P-4
which are sale deeds of village Hardo Nimoh, adjacent to village Dadhi,
wherein also rising trend is shown because the land has been sold towards
the close of the year 1985 and beginning of the year 1986 for over more
than Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Court
had found that since the land in question of village Dadhi is on the Ropar
Nangal road and is near Kiratpur town. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50000/-
per acre has been awarded over and above the compensation of Rs. 27972/-
per acre assessed by the Collector, which in my view, is just and adequate in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
So far as the sale instances Exs. R-1 and R-2 are concerned, the
same cannot be taken into consideration simply for the reason that average
price per acre in respect of sale instance Ex.R-1 comes to Rs. 6400/- per
acre and the average price in respect of sale instance Ex.R-2 comes to
Rs.3600/- per acre, which is much less than the award of the Collector
assessed @ Rs.27972/- per acre.
No one chose to appear for land-owners to argue the cross
objections.
In view of the totality of facts and circumstances, I do not find
any substances in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the
appellants-State that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- per acre is on higher
RFA No.1909 of 1991 5
side. Therefore, the present appeals being meritless as well as the cross
objections which are devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed without any
order as to costs.
November 04,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)RR Judge