RFA1199 of 1993 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No. 1199 of 1993
Decided on November 26,2008.
The State of Punjab
--- Appellant
vs.
Nirmal Singh and others
---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Present: Mr.Vivek Chauhan,A.A.G, Punjab, for the appellant
None for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
This judgment shall dispose of 15 appeals i.e. R.F.A. Nos.
1199,1198 of 1993, 585 of 1996, 59 of 1994, 3628, 3627, 3626, 3625, 1197,
1196, 1195,1194,1193,1192 and 1191 of 1993 filed by the State of Punjab
against the award of the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala, dated
30.10.1992, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
The facts are, however, taken from RFA No. 1199 of 1993.
Land measuring 5.15 acres was sought to be acquired in village
Said Kheri Hadbast No.72, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, with the
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short,’the Act’) dated 14.3.1988, for a public purpose, namely for the
RFA1199 of 1993 2
construction of Said Kheri Minor. It was followed by a notification of
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.3.1988 and published in
the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 30.3.1988.
The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.366/P/SYL
dated 22.4.1989, determined the compensation by classifying the land into
two categories.
Objections under Sections 18 of the Act, were filed by the
landowners/claimants against the award of the Collector in which it was
alleged that the compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre was very meagre
because acquired land had a high potentiality as it used to yield three crops
in a year and could be used for building and commercial purpose. It was
alleged that the remaining land has been divided into two parts for which
the claimants be granted severance charges @ Rs. 50,000/-. The State of
Punjab denied the claim for higher compensation and asserted that the
award of the Collector is just and fair.
Both the parties led their respective evidence. The claimants
examined Balwinder Singh Patwari Halqa of village Said Kheri as AW-1,
who deposed that the land in question was acquired for establishing Mandi
and the quality of the land for the SYL and Mandi is the same. This
witness proved the sketch Ex.P-1 but during the cross examination, he
stated that the acquired land falls on the other side of the village whereas
the Mandi has been established towards Rajpura side. Hira Singh
appeared as AW-2 and deposed that their village is situated at a distance of
half kilometer from Rajpura town and their land has been acquired for
Rajpura Mandi. He also stated that quality of the acquired land for Mandi
and SYL is the same. The claimants have placed reliance upon two
RFA1199 of 1993 3
judgments Exs. A-1 and A-2 delivered in land reference cases with regard
to land situated in village Neelpur and Said Kheri. On the other hand,
respondents examined Sham Lal Patwari as RW-1 and also placed
reliance upon documents Exs. R-1 to R-6.
After considering the entire evidence on record while relying
upon judgment Ex.A11, the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala, vide
order dated 30.10.1992 determined the compensation of the acquired land
@ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.60,000/- per acre for the
remaining land of all types.
Mr.Vivek Chauhan, learned, A.A.G,Punjab while
appearing for the appellants has argued that the learned Reference Court
had committed an error while relying upon judgment Ex. A-1. He
submitted that villages Neelpur and Said Kheri are at a considerable
distance, as such the value of the land of village Neelpur cannot be equated
with that of village Said Kheri.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have
perused the record with his assistance.
The land of two villages namely, Neelpur and Said Kheri
was acquired with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act
dated 2.5.1980 for the public purpose, namely for establishing grain market
on an area of 40 kanals 5 marlas. The land Acquisition Collector
announced his award on 17.8.1986 and assessed the market value of the
acquired land of village Neelpur up to 100 meter width along the
Rajpura-Patiala road for all kind of land except Gair-Mumkin Khade @
Rs.60,000/- per acre and for the remaining land @ Rs.40,000/- per acre
for Chahi, and @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre for Barani. in respect of land of
RFA1199 of 1993 4
village Said Kheri, Chahi land was assessed @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre,
Barani @ Rs.20,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin @ Rs.15,000/- per acre.
The learned District Judge, Patiala, vide his award dated 29.7.1988 (Ex.A-
1) re-determined the compensation @ Rs. 1,70,000/- per acre in respect of
the land abutting on Rajpura-Patiala road up to a depth of 100 meters for
all kinds of land of village Neelpur and in respect of remaining land of
village Neelpur, the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre
for Chahi and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for their remaining land of every
type. The rate of compensation in respect of acquired land in village Said
Kheri was assessed @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and @ Rs.60,000/-
per acre for all kinds of the remaining land.
In view of the fact that value of land in village Neelpur and
Said Kheri has been differently assessed by learned District Judge, Patiala
vide his award Ex. A-1, the argument raised by learned counsel for the
appellants is totally misconceived that the learned Reference Court has
erred in relying upon Ex. A-1 for the purpose of determining the
compensation in respect of the land of village Said Kheri. In my view, the
learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex. A-1 so far as the
compensation of village Said Kheri is concerned and determined the
compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.60,000/- per acre
for all other remaining lands. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation
of village Said Kheri has been awarded by the learned Reference Court
while taking into account the compensation determined in the case of
village Neelpur.
In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in
RFA1199 of 1993 5
these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed though without any order
as to costs.
November 26,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge