Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 127 (PNJ)

Dalip Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-02-03

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Government of State of Punjab issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act here in after referred to as the Act on 3rd December, 1984, which was published on 6th December, 1984 in the Gazette, to acquire 16.45 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Chand Baja. Tehsil and District Faridkot. This was followed by notification under section 6 of the Act dated 22nd July, 1985. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, realignment of Talwandi-Faridkot road and creating a bye-pass at village Chand Baja. The Land Acquisition Collector after having followed the prescribed procedure of law vide his Award No. 3 dated 26th November, 1986 categorised the entire acquired land into three different categories and also awarded compensation for trees and tube wells etc. The awarded compensation reads as under:- Rs. 21,560/- per acre for Nehri; Rs. 41,600/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Ground and Rood; Rs. 21,500/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Rasta; Rs. 19,336.50 for fruit trees; Rs. 11,800/- for bores and motor wall etc. Rs. 7104/- for standing crops (vide award dated 19th December, 1986) 2 The claimants were dis-satisfied with the extent of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the Collector. As such they preferred references under section 18 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Faridkot. 18 references were made to the learned District Judge, Faridkot. which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 10th April, 1991. The learned District Judge removed the categorisation of land as shown ,by the Collector and awarded uniform compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre to the claimants. However, no amount was increased on other counts i.e. for trees, tubewells etc. and standing crops. 3. Still the claimants felt that the compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their respective lands was inadequate and as such all the 18 claimants who were party to the references before the learned District Judge have preferred 18 Regular First Appeals before this Court. However, the State has accepted the award of the learned District Judge and has not preferred any appeal. Vide order dated 31st January, 2000 the Court passed the following order and reserved the cases for judgment: "These cases have been on the regular board for number of days. However, the State has accepted the award of the learned District Judge and has not preferred any appeal. Vide order dated 31st January, 2000 the Court passed the following order and reserved the cases for judgment: "These cases have been on the regular board for number of days. The names of the counsel for the parties have been duly shown in the list. In the list of 17th January, 2000, it was specifically mentioned that these cases shall be taken up on 27th January, 2000. In the list of 28th January, 2000 a specific note was given that all Regular First Appeals fixed before this Court for 27th January, 2000 would stand adjourned to 31st January, 2000. Despite sending messages through the Court staff as well as through the office of Advocate General, Punjab, none has appeared to argue on behalf of the appellants/claimants. Resultantly, arguments on behalf of the State have been heard. Cases are reserved for judgment." 4. While claiming further enhancement of the awarded compensation, the claimants have relied upon the evidence which was led by them before the reference Court. The petitioners had produced two sale deeds Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and examined four witnesses PW1 to PW4 in support of their case. PW3 Dhanna Singh retired S.D.O. had produced the site plan Ex.AW 3/A. To rebut this evidence, the State had produced sale deeds Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 and had produced on record site plan Ex.DA and examined only one witness Gurdeep Singh Patwari as RW1. 5. From the record it is clear that either of the parties had not proved the sale instance/sale deeds in accordance with law. Neither the claimants nor the State had examined vendor/vendee or any other official to prove the authenticity of the documents and genuineness of the consideration paid thereunder. Thus, in accordance with the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2625, these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration. 6. The learned District Judge relied upon Ex.P.2 which is the sale deed dated 9th August, 1982 where land measuring about 13 kanals 17 marlas was sold for Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, giving a price of Rs. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2625, these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration. 6. The learned District Judge relied upon Ex.P.2 which is the sale deed dated 9th August, 1982 where land measuring about 13 kanals 17 marlas was sold for Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, giving a price of Rs. 23,200/- per acre and giving increase for the intervening period the learned Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants. 7. This Court has to proceed on the basis of the record before it and considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the State cannot argue that the compensation awarded by the learned reference Court is on the higher side, as the State has not preferred any appeals. Ex.AW3/A is the site plan produced by the claimants on record of the acquired land, which shows that the acquired land runs from Khasra No. 838/2 to Khasra No. 1179 and joins the old pucca road leading to Amritsar on both ends. Adjacent to the road is the Grain Market, High School and Water Works. As stated by PW1 the village abadi abuts the bye-pass for which the land was acquired. The judgment was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 10th April, 1991 and at that time in consonance with the provisions of section 51-A of the Act, the sale deeds were proved according to law and it is because of a subsequent judgment of the Honble Apex Court that these sale instances have become inadmissible in evidence. In other words, one can hardly see any error in the impugned judgment. The location of the land with improvements coming all around, the acquired land would certainly call for an increase if Ex.P.2 was to be taken as the basis for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. The land of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 both relate to village Chand Baja. 8. Firstly, the sale instance/sale deeds produced and exhibited on behalf of each of the parties are inadmissible in evidence and secondly, even if they were to be taken into consideration, there is no justifiable reason before this Court to grant any enhancement to the claimants. The land of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 both relate to village Chand Baja. 8. Firstly, the sale instance/sale deeds produced and exhibited on behalf of each of the parties are inadmissible in evidence and secondly, even if they were to be taken into consideration, there is no justifiable reason before this Court to grant any enhancement to the claimants. EX.D.1 to Ex.D.5 show a very low price of the land in the same revenue estate even for the year 1982-83 while Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 show a high price even in the years much prior to the date of acquisition. The onus to prove that there was increase in the cost of the land and there is substantial evidence to grant increase to the claimants, is heavily on the claimants. In the present case no evidence has been produced by the claimants to justify either of the ingredients. The learned District Judge had already granted to the claimants nearly double the price of the land as indicated by Ex.P.2 which is only two years prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act in the present case. 9. For the reasons afore-stated, I see no merit in the appeals of the claimants. Thus, the same are dismissed without any order as to costs.