Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 176 (PNJ)

Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-02-10

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - By this common judgment I propose to dispose of 19 regular first appeals and cross objections preferred by the parties against the judgment and award of the learned reference Court dated 22.7.1993. State has filed 10 appeals against this judgment while the claimants have filed 8 appeals and one cross objection in one of the appeal preferred by the State. All these appeals arise from the same judgment and are based upon common evidence and record. As such it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals together. 2. Government of State of Punjab on 30.3.1988 in its official gazette published a notification dated 21.3.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Vide this notification the State acquired 14.12 acres of land in village Chilla, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. In furtherance thereto notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.4.1988. The land was acquired for construction of lower branch canal in the main SYL project. The Land Acquisition Collector after following the due process of law vide his award dated 20.2.1990 categorised the acquired land into three different categories and awarded the following compensation to the owners of the land : Chahi/Abi Rs. 34699/- per acre. Barani Rs. 31862/- per acre. Mumkin Rs. 31862/- per acre. 3. The claimants preferred references under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge Ropar. There were 10 references preferred by the claimants. All these 10 references were answered by the learned Additional District Judge by a common judgment and award dated 22.7.1993. On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court, the Court classified the land into two categories i.e. Abi land and Gair Mumkin Choa. Compensation at the ratio of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre and Rs. 80,000/- per acre respectively was awarded to the owners of these lands. Dis-satisfied from the amount of compensation awarded to the cliamants, they have come before this Court praying for further enhancement of the awarded compensation. 4. According to the State the compensation already awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and they pray for restoration of the award of the Collector. Dis-satisfied from the amount of compensation awarded to the cliamants, they have come before this Court praying for further enhancement of the awarded compensation. 4. According to the State the compensation already awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and they pray for restoration of the award of the Collector. For proper appreciation of these rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties it is important for this Court to refer to the gist of evidence produced by the parties before the learned reference Court. The claimants only examined one witness PW1 Ram Rakha Singh, who referred to the value and location of the land. They produced on record Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, the sale deeds and Ex.P4 and P5 the award/judgments of the Court. Respondents only tendered in evidence Ex.R.1, the site plan. No other oral or documentarly evidence was led by the respondents. 5. It is an undisputed fact that the SYL canal is a big project and runs through a very long area of the State of Punjab. To provide water for agricultural and other puposes, small canals/distributories of this canal have been constructed. Lands from different villages have been acquired. In Ex.R.1 the boundaries of the village and the acquired land have been shown. This also shows the location of the canal. The village abadi has been shown in yellow colour of Ex.R.1, which is in the middle of the acquired land. PW1 stated that the land acquired was a Chahi land and it had a great potential for residential as well as commercial purposes. Mohali is stated to be a big commercial complex and the boundaries of village Kanbali and Kumbra were stated to be adjoining village Chilla. Compensation of Rs. 2,60,00/- per acre was awarded by the Collector for the lands acquired in village Kambali. This claimant claimed Rs. six lacs per acre for acquisition of his lands. It was specifically put to this witness in cross-examination that village Mohali was quite away from village Chilla and that the entire acquired land was lying vacant. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants on 1.2.1993 had only tendered the documents afore noticed in evidence and closed the evidence. The learned reference Court while relying upon Ex.A.5 granted the afore-stated compensation to the claimants. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants on 1.2.1993 had only tendered the documents afore noticed in evidence and closed the evidence. The learned reference Court while relying upon Ex.A.5 granted the afore-stated compensation to the claimants. As far as Ex.P.1 to P.3 are concerned, they are not admissible in evidence because they had merely been tendered in evidence because they had merely been tendered in evidence and the claimants did not examine any vendor/vendee or any other official from the concerned authorities to prove the authenticity of the documents and the consideration paid thereunder. 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 others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 these sale instances are inadmissible and as such cannot be taken into consideration. Further more, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are sale deeds which are nearly a years prior to the date of acquisition and even on that ground these cannot be looked into. As far as Ex.P.4 is concerned, this also cannot help the claimants, as it relates to different village and the acquisition in this case was more than 8 months after the notification in question. The land of villages Mohali and Kambali has a much better location and potential and the prices of land in those were apparently much higher than the land in question. 7. The learned reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex.P.5. This is a judgment of the High Court dated 10.9.1990 where the Letters Patents Bench of this Court awarded compensation for acquisition of land in villages Kambali, Kambala, Mataur, Sohana etc. at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. The claimants would certainly be entitled to some increase on that value because of lapse of time. The notification in Ex.P.5 is dated 4.2.1981 while in the present case the notification was issued on 21.3.1988. at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. The claimants would certainly be entitled to some increase on that value because of lapse of time. The notification in Ex.P.5 is dated 4.2.1981 while in the present case the notification was issued on 21.3.1988. But this advantage would not give much benefit to the claimants as certain amount of deduction has to be made from the awarded amount on the account of huge acquisition, one time payment, interest of the State and other factors as enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S. Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another, 1996(20 SCC 62. 8. Further, some amount has to be deducted on account of locatin and potential of the land in comparison to the land of other developed area. T he claimants have failed to discharge this onus by bringing on record reasonable material and relevant evidence. In order to claim further enhancement definite positive evidence should have bene produced on record. If one reads the statement of the sole witness produced on behalf of the claimants, it is implicit that the location of the land of other villages is better than the acquired land and those lands have much greater potential and commercial value. PW 1 has specifically stated that Mohali and Kambali etc. are fully developed and complete industrial complex was being set up there. On in other words the advantage arising as a result of lapse of time, would be liable to be set off in its entirety against the deduction to be made resulting from the above consideration. The State in any case has brought no evidence on record to show that the compensation awarded by the learned reference Court is on the higher side. In fact it is a case of no evidence as far as State is concerned. Result of the above discussion is that all the appeals preferred by the State or by the claimants are dismissed without any order as to costs.