Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 853 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Gopal Singh

2001-08-13

ARUN B.SAHARYA, V.K.BALI

body2001
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - We propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause X of Letters Patent bearing Nos. 518 of 1986 to 528 of 1986 and 656 of 1986 by a common order, as all these appeals emanate from same order rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 11.4.1986 as also for the reason that same questions of law and fact are involved in all these appeals. 2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals reveal that Government of Punjab issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as, the Act) on 19.3.1981 intending to acquired land for public purposes, namely, for construction of Dholbaha Dam Reservoir. Follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 24.3.1991. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 25.2.1982, assessed the market value of different kinds of land as under :- Clause of land Rate awarded per marla Cho, Abi, Abadi, School Adda and Minor Rs. 24/- Barani, Sarak Rasta and Chahi Rs. 16/- Bagh Barani Rs. 32/- Banjar Jadid Rs. 12/- Khad, Pahar, Banjar Qadim and Mandir Rs. 8/- 3. Being dissatisfied of inadequate compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants (hereinafter to be referred as the respondents) moved petitions under Section 18 of the Act pleading therein that the acquired land was near the Dholbaha Abadi and in the vicinity of the same there were School, Forest Rest House and Shopping Centre. Trees were grown on the acquired land which was the source of income of the respondents. They claimed that Rs. 6, 000/- per marla should have been assessed as market value of their land at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. 4. The claim of the respondents was contested by the State. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the followings issues :- 1) Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is inadequate ? OPA 2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the reasonable compensation due to the claimant ? OPA 3) Relief. 5. In support of their claim, the respondents examined AW-1 Harkishan Singh to prove the site plan Ex. A depicting the acquired land in the yellow lines and unacquired land in blue colour. Abadi Deh was depicted in red colour and school, rest house and shops in black lines. OPA 3) Relief. 5. In support of their claim, the respondents examined AW-1 Harkishan Singh to prove the site plan Ex. A depicting the acquired land in the yellow lines and unacquired land in blue colour. Abadi Deh was depicted in red colour and school, rest house and shops in black lines. AW-2 Major Ram Singh, one of the respondents, stated that the acquired land belongs to him and his brothers. The acquired land was yielding Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 30,000/- per annum and after acquisition they have lost the source of income. According to him, Banjar land should have been assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per kanal, while Chahi land at Rs. 3,000/- per kanal. AW-3 Raghunath Singh, one of the respondents, got the site plan Ex. A-1 prepared from the Draftsman, pertaining to his own land. He stated that there was no access or passage to his unacquired area. He, however, stated that Barani land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per kanal, while Pahar area at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per kanal, whereas Abi land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per kanal. AW-4 Revenue Patwari proved Akshajra Ex. AW-4/A and stated that no access would be left to the unacquired land of the respondents after the Dam is filled with water. Another respondent, AW-5 Rajesh Kumar Bhasin, stated that irrigated land in the village could fetch market value of Rs. 10,000/- per kanal, Barani land at Rs. 8,000/- per kanal and Gair Mumkin Pahar at Rs. 5,000/- per kanal. He used to earn Rs. 1.5 lac out of the Jungle. The respondents also tendered into evidence copies of Mutations Exs. A-5 to A-11, Jamabandis Exs. A-12, A-13, A-15 and A-16 and copy of Khasra Girdwari Ex. A- 14. In rebuttal, the appellants (hereinafter to be referred as the State) tendered copies of Mutations Exs. R-1 to R-10 in evidence. Counsel for the respondents made statement on 26.3.1986 that the Land Acquisition Collector had given separate award regarding the trees and the constructions existing in the acquired land and the respondents had filed separate references under Section 18 of the Act against the award of the Collector and that a separate award was being given regarding tunnel and as such in this judgment their claim for compensation for trees, constructions and tunnel may not be considered. 6. 6. Even though the respondents produced on record sale instances of Gair Mumkin Pahar land, Ex. A-5, Gair Mumkin Cho, Exs. A-6 and A-8 and of barani land, Exs. A-7 and A-9 to A-11, the learned Additional District Judge, before whom the reference came up for final disposal, preferred to rely upon same award of the same Court in Land Reference No. 106 of 1983 Jamma Dass v. Punjab State, which also pertains to Award No. 40 of 25.2.1982, i.e., the same award of the Collector which was not accepted by the respondents, giving rise to the references under Section 18 of the Act. In the said case with regard to the same award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the Court assessed the market value of different kinds of land as follows :- Class of land Rate awarded per marla 1. Gair Mumkin Cho Abadi Rs. 550/- Abadi School Adda and Minor 2. Barani Rs. 30/- 3. Banjar Rs. 24/- 4. Khad and Pahar Rs. 16/- 5. Bagh Barani Rs. 60/- 7. The unchallenged observations of the learned Additional District (Judge) comparing the land, subject matter of the acquisition in the present case, and the one pertaining to the same award culminating into decision in Jamma Dass v. Punjab State, and thus :- "It has already been referred to above that the land which has been acquired for the purpose of construction of the Dholbaha Dam Reservoir has to be equated in terms of situation and potential because these lands are adjacent to each other and form a compact area. The market price of these acquired lands has to be on similar footing and this Court has already assessed the market price of the different kinds of the land acquired pertaining to the Award No. 40 of the Collector at the above said rates. There is no reason to hold that the market price of the land of the present claimants is in any manner more or less than the one assessed by this Court in land reference No. 106 of 1993 Jamma Dass v. The Punjab State, copy of which has been produced by the claimants during the course of arguments." 8. There is no reason to hold that the market price of the land of the present claimants is in any manner more or less than the one assessed by this Court in land reference No. 106 of 1993 Jamma Dass v. The Punjab State, copy of which has been produced by the claimants during the course of arguments." 8. While dealing with the case of the respondent regarding severance of the land which became inaccessible and uneconomical, learned Additional District Judge observed thus :- "The rest of the claimants have brought evidence that because of the acquisition, some part of their lands have been left unacquired which has adversely affected the utility of the unacquired land, firstly because it has been rendered inaccessible. AW-5 Rajesh Kumar Bhasin has specifically stated about the severance caused to the lands of the claimants, which is further supported from the testimony of AW-4 Ram Parkash Patwari, who has stated that when the dam will be filled with water, no access would be left to the claimants to the unacquired lands. A reference to the award of the Collector would show that the claimants land which is on hilly slopes has been acquired to certain height, which means that the remaining land towards the hill has not been acquired. When the dam shall be filled with water, no approach would be left to the hill tops, i.e., the unacquired portion of the land of the claimants and in a way the unacquired land would be total loss to the owner- claimants. In such circumstances, the land owners are entitled to compensation......." 9. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1980 Revenue Law Reporter 399, it was further held by the learned Additional District Judge that the claimants of land reference other than the land reference Nos. 1 to 3 of the 1983, would be entitled to compensation at the rate of 50% of the market price of their unacquired land on account of damages for severance from the acquired land in addition to the market price of the acquired land, besides the usual solatium and interest. Claim of the respondents with regard to loss suffered on account of growing trees on the land was rejected. 10. Claim of the respondents with regard to loss suffered on account of growing trees on the land was rejected. 10. The award of the learned Additional District Judge was challenged in different Regular First Appeals that came to be filed by the State and the learned Single Judge, vide its order dated 11.4.1986, dismissed the same being barred by time. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that admittedly the period for filing the appeal expired on 2.7.1985 and the same was filed on 16.7.1985. It was not accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relied to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, as per mandate of Rule 3-A of Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure. Such an application was, of course, filed on 12.9.1985, nearly two months after the institution of the appeal. Provisions of Rule 3-A CPC are mandatory and, therefore, an application filed beyond limitation, not accompanied by an application setting out grounds for not preferring it within the prescribed period, cannot be entertained. In support of the aforesaid view, the learned Single Judge relied upon judgments in Padmavathi v. Kalu, AIR 1980 (sick) Kerala and Madhukar Daso Despande v. Anant Nilkantha Deshpande and others, AIR 1984 Karnataka 40. 11. We have given our anxious thoughts to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State but find no substance whatsoever in the same. Inasmuch as there is no scope in reducing the market value assessed by the learned Additional District Judge, on a date when notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued, no useful purpose would be served in remitting this case to the learned Single Judge. It shall be in the interest of justice, which in turn would avoid unnecessary delay by number of years, to decide this case on merits rather than first to deal with the question of limitation and in case there may be merit in the appeal on that count, then to remand the case to learned Single Judge for dealing with the case on merits. 12. 12. Coming to the merits of this case, we may observe that the learned Additional District Judge, while increasing market value of the land from the one awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, solely placed reliance upon a judgment of the same very Court, vide which market value of the land, subject matter of the same award, was assessed. Findings regarding location of land subject matter of acquisition in this case and the one subject matter of decision in Jamma Dass v. State of Punjab have not been disputed before us. Categorical finding has been recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, that the land of the same common award is in a compact block. There is no scope whatsoever, again, in either rejecting altogether claim of the respondents on account of damages caused to them due to severance of their land which has now been inaccessible or even to reduce the compensation on that aunt. Again, it has remained undisputed that the unacquired land is on hilly tops and there is no access to the same. It has become totally useless for the respondents. Counsel representing the State, during the course of arguments, could not urge anything whatsoever that may detract from the findings of the learned Additional District Judge, reference of which has been given immediately above. 13. Finding no merit in these appeals, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own posts. Appeal dismissed.