Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 566 (PNJ)

Lal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-25

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The State of punjab, vide Notification dated 25.11.1981 issued under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) acquired 258 kanals 12 marlas of land in village Basti sheikh, District Jalandhar for a public purpose namely for providing sewerage in southern area of Jalandhar City and for providing link road from Pritam Place to Kapurthala with an object to remove congestion from existing city area. In furtherance to which Notification under Sec.6 of the Act was issued on 25.11.1981. On actual measurement, land was found measuring 253 kanals 6 marlas and out of this, land measuring 4 kanals 15 marlas was again left from the acquisition. The total area, actually acquired and subject-matter before the land Acquisition Collector was 248 kanals 11 marlas. The learned Acquisition Collector, vide award No.1 dated 15.9.1986 awarded the following compensation to the claimants, in addition to the compensation for super-structures in certain cases : 1_4_CCC4_2001.htm 2. The claimants felt dissatisfied from the compensation granted to them and they approached the learned Additional District Judge by filing references under Sec.18 of the act, who, vide his Award dated 31st July, 1992, enhanced the compensation, while maintaining categorisation of the land as under : Chahi and Gair Mumukin Rs.1,60,000/- per acre gair Mumkin Chhappar Rs.1,20,000/- per acre 3. The State appears to have filed no appeal against the judgment dated 31st July, 1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, but the claimants have preferred 21 Regular First Appeal Nos.3273, 3464, 3469, 3463, 3578, 3465, 3591, and 3499 all of 1992; 146, 387, 3041, 3332, 2207, 3199, 3500, 3331, 288, 3200, 3333 and 3119 all of 1993 and of 1994; and Cross objections Nos.52-C/1 to 54 (sic.) of 1994, while the learned Additional District Judge had answered 26 references, vide impugned judgment. It will be appropriate to deal with all these appeals and cross-objections by a common judgment. 4. The basic contention raised on behalf of the State of Punjab is that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is based on no evidence and in any case on no admissible evidence. He contends that the award of the Land Acquisition Collector should be restored. 5. The claimants had examined 13 witnesses AW 1 to AW 13 which include claimants, valuer and architect. He contends that the award of the Land Acquisition Collector should be restored. 5. The claimants had examined 13 witnesses AW 1 to AW 13 which include claimants, valuer and architect. The claimants, in fact, had executed power of attorneys and most of the witnesses have appeared as attorneys, sale of deeds Exhibits AW 5/c, AW 5/f and aw 5/g were the sale instances produced and__ intended to be proved on record, while sale deeds Exhibits A26 to A34, A36 and A37 were tendered in evidence. Exhibit A35 is the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 18th september, 1986 fora Notification under Sec.4 of the Act dated 19th April, 1983. The respondents only examined DW 1 who tendered Exhibit D1 sale deed. 6. The foremost question that falls for determination before the Court was whether there was any admissible evidence before the court, which could form valid basis for grant of compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands. All the sale deeds including Exhibits AW 5/c, AW 5/f and AW 5/g have not been proved by examining any vendor or vendee to the sale deeds. However an attorney made reference to the sale deed but did not comment when examined as PW 5 on the factum of sale execution of the document and consideration that passed between the parties, in furtherance to the sale deed in his presence. 7. On the other hand, Exhibit A26 to a34, A36 and A37 are the sale deeds which have been merely tendered in evidence by the counsel while closing the evidence. As is clear from the above narrated facts on record, none of the sale deeds can be relied upon by the court, in view of the law laid down by the honble Supreme Court of India in the case a. P. State Road Transport Corporation, hyderabad V/s. P. Venkaiah and Ors. and Special deputy Collector and Anr. etc. V/s. Kurra sambasiua Rao and Ors 8. Once these documents are treated to be inadmissible in evidence, the obvious result is that they have to be excluded from the zone of consideration for determining fair market value of the land in question at the time of notification. The next material piece of evidence is Exhibit A35. This is an award dated 18th September, 1986 for a notification, which was issued for acquisition of land on 19th April, 1983. The next material piece of evidence is Exhibit A35. This is an award dated 18th September, 1986 for a notification, which was issued for acquisition of land on 19th April, 1983. Notification under Sec.4 of the land is more than two years subsequent to the notification in the present case, thus, this notify cation would in no way be a material, relevant and relatable piece of evidence for determination of the market value. 9. It is settled principle of law that evidence subsequent to the date of notification can only be taken into consideration limited to the extent to see the increasing trend of price that too should be of a period immediately after the notification or within a reasonable time thereof. It is also settled principle of law that court has to determine the market value of the land on the date of notification under Sec.4, on the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. In this view of the matter no reliance can be placed upon exhibit A35 as well. 10. The only sale deeds tendered by the respondents again is inadmissible for the same reason as afore-noticed. Learned Additional district Judge has discussed upon the sale deeds and taken out the average thereof, but all these sale deeds are inadmissible and thus could not form the basis of a valid and sustainable award. 11. This Court had the occasion to discuss in detail the course of action that should be followed in the cases where there is practically no evidence much less direct evidence to determine the market value of the land in question if by subsequent law certain documents have been rendered inadmissible, it will not be fair and proper for this Court to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimants without giving them opportunity to prove their case in accordance with existing law. 12. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of union of India V/s. Puran Banti, where the court after discussing the judgments of the supreme Court, i. e. A. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad V/s. P. venkaiah and Ors. (supra), and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. etc. V/s. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors. (supra), held as under :" "18. (supra), and Special Deputy Collector and Anr. etc. V/s. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors. (supra), held as under :" "18. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that it would not be fair and proper for this court to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimants and/or comment upon the claim of Union of India that the amount awarded by the learned Court below is in excess, merely on the basis of the limited admissible evidence on record. The principles of fairness would demand that the party should be afforded an opportunity to prove the said documents in accordance with law. If the process of law is truncated with an object to award the amounts in the present manner, it is bound to prejudicially affect the interests of not only the Union of India but also the claimants. The amount of village Damtal would hardly be of any consequence as the amount stands considerably reduced and the land is located in an area of different State. Rival Contentions in regard to other two awards I do not wish to discuss on merits in detail, so as to avoid the rights of any party being jeopardized before the Court below. As the sale deeds are inadmissible and interests of large number of claimants as well as the Union of India are very heavy, it would neither be fair nor equitable for this Court to pronounce the amount of compensation on more than one or two awards placed on record. There is considerable variation even in the amounts awarded in those awards and the Court would have to find out some reasonable basis to award the amount of increase of those awards which again must be based on some evidence on record. In these circumstances the interest of justice demands that the matter should be remanded to the learned counsel below for adjudication and determination of compensation in accordance with law. Such an approach would not be derivative in any manner, but would be reiteration of the directive contained in the judgment of supreme Court of India in the case of p. Venkiah (supra ).10. Such an approach would not be derivative in any manner, but would be reiteration of the directive contained in the judgment of supreme Court of India in the case of p. Venkiah (supra ).10. Another essential feature which the court must take into consideration is that the present cases before the learned Trial Court are not one of the cases of no evidence or where there is no possibility of proper evidence which is admissible in accordance with law being led before the learned trial Court. In fact the parties had led evidence which is not admissible as per law but can be rendered admissible by compliance to the required principles of law and the principles enunciated by the honble Apex Court as stated above. The evidence now so produced would not only be relevant but would be enough material bearing on all aspects of this case, i. e. award of compensation, element of increase, if the claimants are entitled to, and even for proper application of rule of thumb. Well accepted cannon of law is that reason is the soul of the decision-making process. Lack of reasoning would render judicial decision open to attack on that ground alone. Even on that analysis remand of the case would not only be justifiable but appears to be essential. " 13. Acquisition is primarily an act on the part of the State and the claimant-owners are normally unwilling for such acquisition. Compulsory acquisition is again subject to the principle of fairness. The claimants whose lands are being acquired must receive adequate and reasonable compensation for acquisition of their lands, of course, in accordance with the due process of law. Once the evidence was admissible when recorded, but becomes inadmissible because of the law enunciated by the honble Supreme Court of India, it may not be fair to non-suit the claimants in the present case who had tendered as many as 15 sale deeds of varied valuation on record and even an award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector. The provisions of Sec.51-A of the land Acquisition Act had come to the aid of the applicants earlier and it will not be reasonable to place them at a complete disadvantage. The provisions of Sec.51-A of the land Acquisition Act had come to the aid of the applicants earlier and it will not be reasonable to place them at a complete disadvantage. In view of the discussion above, the principles of fairness would demand that the claimants as well as the State should be given an opportunity to prove their entire case as per the law presently in force. The judgment of the Honble apex Court is binding on this Court and the remand of the case is an inevitable result thereof. 14. For the reasons aforestated, all these regular first appeals are disposed of setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Court below dated 31.7.1992 and further with a direction that the learned Reference Court would grant an opportunity not more than two dates of hearing to each of the parties to these proceedings to conclude their evidence and prove the documents if they so desire in accordance with law. It is requested that the learned Reference Court may dispose of the cases at the earliest, but not later than six months from the date on which copy of this order is brought to their notice. The appellants could be entitled to refund of the Court-fees as the appeals are not being decided on merits: appeal disposed accordingly.