Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 423 (PNJ)

Parsini Devi v. State of Punjab

2001-04-17

R.L.ANAND

body2001
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment, I dispose of two appeals i.e. R.F.A. No. 172 of 1991 titled Parsini Devi and others v. The State of Punjab and R.F.A. No. 1266 of 1991 titled Punjab Wakf Board v. State of Punjab and others, as both these appeals have arisen from the same judgment dated 24.11.1990, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur who awarded compensation with regard to Chahi at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre while the market value of the gair mumkin land was determined at a rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The trial Court also awarded the benefits to the land owners under Sections 23-(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that vide Notification No. 12737-6HB III/82/21131 dated 16.9.1983 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act vide Notification No. 9(187)-83/1/HBVI dated 12.12.1985, land measuring 81 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in the area of Sunam, Hadbast No. 28 was acquired by the State Government for public purposes i.e. for construction of Civil Hospital, Sunam, and the award was given by the Land acquisition Collector, Sunam, who assessed the market value of the chahi at the rate of Rs. 42,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector further assessed the market value of the Gair Mumkin land at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and they made the references under Section 18 of the said Act which were referred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who called upon the parties to file their replies and decided the matter vide the impugned award dated 24.11.1990. 3. The case set up by the landowners was that the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Collector was inadequate. According to the appellants Parsini Devi and others, the market value of the land should be ruppes three lacs per acre on the date of the acquisition. They also claimed costs of tubewell and Kotha amounting to Rs. 30,000/- besides Rs. 8,000/- for the trees and also Rs. 25,000/- for the standing crops. According to the Wakf Board the value of the land was not less than Rs. They also claimed costs of tubewell and Kotha amounting to Rs. 30,000/- besides Rs. 8,000/- for the trees and also Rs. 25,000/- for the standing crops. According to the Wakf Board the value of the land was not less than Rs. 100/- per square yard on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This aspect of the case was disputed by the State Government. Resultantly, the Court framed the following issues in the reference of Smt. Parsini Devi and others:- 1. What was the market price of the acquired land at the time of notifications ? OPA 2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the costs of tubewell, Kotha and trees standing in the acquired land as allege ? OPA 3. Whether the applicants are entitled to acquisition charges at the rate of Rs. 30/- per cent of the market value ? OPA 4. Whether the applicants are entitled to interest at the rate of Rs. 12/- per cent from the date of possession ? OPA 5. Relief. In the land reference of Punjab Wakf Board the Court framed the following issues:- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? OPA 2. Relief. 4. It may be mentioned here that two more land references are sent to the Court of Additional District Judge for determination and all the references were consolidated. 5. From the side of the land owners following witnesses were produced. Laddi Parshad PW1 deposed that the land acquired belonging to the appellant- petitioners Parsini Devi and others was situated at Bhatinda-Patiala main road and was within the Municipal limits. He stated that there was a rice sheller, ice factory and other factories near the acquired land. Workshops and I.T.I. building were also at a distance ranging between half a kilometre to 1/4 kilometre from the acquired land. It has come in the statement of Shri Laddli Parshad that one tube well motor and kotha were situated in the land and no compensation has been paid by the Collector in this regard. PW4 Ajaib Singh also stated that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits and its potential value can be used for commercial purposes. It has come in the statement of Shri Laddli Parshad that one tube well motor and kotha were situated in the land and no compensation has been paid by the Collector in this regard. PW4 Ajaib Singh also stated that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits and its potential value can be used for commercial purposes. It has also come in the statement of this witness that PWD Rest House and some shops are situated near the acquired area and as per the opinion of this witness the market value of this acquired area should be rupees three lacs per acre. In the cross-examination he admitted that the building of ITI was at a distance of 200 yards. Paramjit Singh appeared as PW-5 and his statement was only to the effect that the acquired area is in the municipal limits. From the side of Wakf Board Mohammad Sadiq appeared as PW-7 and he has given the location of the land. Further he stated that the acquired area is surrounded by residential and commercial buildings. Kharati Ram PW2 simply prepared the site plan Ex.A.2. Gian Chand Patwari Halqa prepared the site plan Ex.AW3/1. PW-6 Shri Ved Parkash Advocate proved the photo copy of Mukhtiarnama executed by Smt. Parsini Devi. Apart from that, the documentary evidence which has been relied upon from the side of the land owners was as follows:- Date of sale deed Area sold Consideration Ex.P.5, 29.5.1981 1 Kanal Rs. 24,000/- Ex.P.19., 16.4.1975 1 K 4-6/121 M. Rs. 9,000/- Ex.P.20., 16.4.1975 1 K 4-26/121 M. Rs. 9,000/- -------------------------------------------------------------- 6. The sale deeds Exs. P.6 to P.18 pertain to small area such as 3 marlas, 11 marlas, 10 marlas, 8 marlas, 15 marlas, 7 marlas and the larger area is 19 marlas. The learned Additional District Judge while awarding the compensation held in paras No. 15 and 16 as follows :- "15. Perusal of site plan Ex.A-2 shows that land forming subject matter of various sale deeds depicted in it cannot be said to be similarly situated when compared to land acquired which is far away from the Abadi. On probing the other sale deeds relied upon, have also not been found to be on better footing in any manner. Perusal of site plan Ex.A-2 shows that land forming subject matter of various sale deeds depicted in it cannot be said to be similarly situated when compared to land acquired which is far away from the Abadi. On probing the other sale deeds relied upon, have also not been found to be on better footing in any manner. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon certified copy Ex.A.4 of judgment dated 31.5.1977 in land Reference No. 2 of 1977 which relates to land acquired at Sunam for construction of the Court complex on the strength of notification dated 21.10.1972 but land forming subject matter of Ex.A.4 was just near the I.T.I. building while land forming subject matter of the land reference before me was much away through still the value determined vide judgment copy whereof is Ex.A-4, the same may be taken to provide some clue for the fair determination of the market value of the land acquired at the time of acquisition. 16. In view of all that has been discussed above, I find it a case where enhancement in the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector is called for and ends of justice would be met if market value of the Chahi/Sailab Chahi land at the time of its acquisition is valued at Rs. 60,000/- per acre while that of Ghair Mumkin land is determined at Rs. 40,000/- per acre." Not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the present two appeals have been filed. 7. I have heard Shri R.K. Singla and Shri G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, DAG, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. Site plan Ex.A.2 gives me the clear position of the acquired area. Near the acquired area there is a hotel, an octroi post, P.W.D. rest house, rice sheller and it further shows that some houses and shops have also been built up. This acquired area is situated on the main road leading to Mansa from Patiala. Thus, the potential value of this land can be used for agriculture and also for commercial activities such as installation of a rice sheller or for erection of public buildings such as hospital etc. This acquired area is situated on the main road leading to Mansa from Patiala. Thus, the potential value of this land can be used for agriculture and also for commercial activities such as installation of a rice sheller or for erection of public buildings such as hospital etc. The court complex is also at a distance of 720 Karms from the acquired area. The distance of P.W.D. rest house is hardly 180 Karms while distance of bus stand is 260 Karms. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that keeping in view the potential value of the acquired land, the minimum compensation which was required to be awarded to the landowners, should be not less than rupees two lacs per acre. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the compensation awarded by the court is just and adequate because the land acquired can only be utilised for agriculture purpose. The sale deeds which have been relied upon by the appellants are not admissible in evidence because neither the vendor nor the vendees of the sale transactions have come in the witness box. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and in my opinion, the sale transactions, which have been relied upon by the appellants cannot be given much weight. So far as the sale transactions Ex. P.6 to P.18 are concerned the smallest area is 3 marlas and the highest range is 19 marlas. With regard to the sale deeds Exs. P.5, P.19 and P.20, neither the vendor nor the vendees of these sale transactions have come in the witness box. Otherwise also, transaction P.5 is dated 29.5.1981. It pertains to area of 1 Kanal sold for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. The land measuring 1 Kanals 4 Marlas was sold in the year 1975 for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/- only. Similarly, land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marla was sold on the same day i.e. 16.4.1975 for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/-. Apart from that, there is no sale transaction with regard to the area sold in the year 1983 as the notification in the present case under Section 4 was issued on 16.9.1983. 11. Be that as it may, there is one document which is very helpful to me for determining the market value of the acquired land and that document is Ex.P.4. 11. Be that as it may, there is one document which is very helpful to me for determining the market value of the acquired land and that document is Ex.P.4. It is the certified copy of the judgment dated 31.5.1977. This judgment would show that the land situated in Sunam was acquired for Court Complex in the year 1972 vide Notification dated 21.10.1972. The Court assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per kanal meaning thereby Rs. 64,000/- per acre. This document, of course, was taken into consideration by the trial Court but in my opinion, it has not been properly discussed. When a compensation with regard to the land acquired in 1972, has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 64,000/- per acre, how the present claimants can be awarded less than this amount. This court can always take judicial notice that there is a trend of rise in prices of the land. So far as the comparative allocation of the land in question is concerned, it is not on lower footing from that of the Court complex. There must be a margin of increase and not decrease. 12. What should be the market value of the land in a given case, is always a question of fact and the Honble Supreme Court has given the guidelines in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625, Special Deputy Collector and another etc. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others and it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court as follows : "What is fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. But not an anxious buyer dealing at arms length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. But not an anxious buyer dealing at arms length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. Th judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the Court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions". Adopting the above guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the market value of chahi land of the acquired area should be Rs. 70,000/- per acre and with regard to the Gairmumkin land, the compensation is assessed at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Thus, the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 stands modified. There is no satisfactory evidence that the land belonging to Parsini Devi and others had any kotha, trees or standing crop, therefore, I affirm the finding of the Court with regard to the other issues. 13. The net result is that both the appeals i.e. R.F.A. No. 172 of 1991 and RFA No. 1266 of 1991, are partly allowed and the impugned judgment is hereby modified and it is declared that land owners-appellants shall get the compensation of the acquired area at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre with regard to the Chahi land and Rs. 50,000/- per acre with regard to Gairmumkin land. They shall also be entitled to the benefit under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. There shall be no orders as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.