Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1008 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Jamna Dass

2003-07-23

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2270 to 2275 of 1985, which have arisen from the common award and relate to the same acquisition. 2. The State of Punjab vide two separate notifications dated 19.3.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) acquired certain land for public purpose, namely, the construction of Dholbaha Dam Reservoir Area in district Hoshiarpur. In the aforesaid two notifications, two different awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Collector while determining the market value and compensation payable to the land owners. These awards were Award No. 34 dated 4.9.1981 and Award No. 40 dated 25.2.1982. In Award No. 34 dated 4.9.1981, the compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the following rates :- "Sr. No. Class of Land Rate awarded per marla Rs. 1. Barani 20.62 per ma 2. Banjar Qadim 10.00 " 3. Ghair Mumkin Pahar & Cho. 10.00 " 4. Ghair Mumkin Abadi 31.23 " " 3. In Award No. 40 dated 25.2.1982, the compensation was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the following rates :- "Sr.No. Class of Land Rate awarded per marla Rs. 1. Cho, Abi, Abadi, School, Adda and Minar 24/- per marla 2. Barani, Sarak, Rasta & Chah. 16/- " 3. Bag Barani 32/- " 4. Banjar Jadid 12/- " 5. Khad, Pahar, Banjar, Qadim and Mandir" 8/- " 4. Feeling dissatisfied against the aforesaid awards, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. Those references were sent to the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur. All those references were consolidated by the learned District Judge vide order dated 19.9.1984 and the evidence were recorded in reference of Jamna Dass v. State of Punjab. The learned District Judge vide his award dated 18.3.1985 allowed the references of the land owners and determined the market value of the acquired land at the following rates :- "Class of land Rate awarded per marla 1. Ghair Mumkin Cho, Abi, Abadi, School, adda and Minar Rs. 50/- 2. Barani Rs. 30/- 3. Banjar Rs. 24/- 4. Banjar Rs. 16/- 5. Bagh Barani Rs. 60/-" 5. Ghair Mumkin Cho, Abi, Abadi, School, adda and Minar Rs. 50/- 2. Barani Rs. 30/- 3. Banjar Rs. 24/- 4. Banjar Rs. 16/- 5. Bagh Barani Rs. 60/-" 5. It was also held that in addition to the aforesaid market value, the land owners will also be entitled for an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The land owners were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation under Section 23(2) of the Act. 6. Against the aforesaid award, the State of Punjab has filed the aforesaid appeals. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the market value of the acquired land determined by the learned District Judge at the aforesaid rate is based on surmises and conjectures and the same is on the higher side. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the land owners/respondents are not entitled for additional amount under Section 23(1- A) of the Act, in view of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 [Act No. 68 of 1984]. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case both the awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector prior to 30.4.1982, therefore, the land owners/respondents were not entitled for the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record and looking to the potential value of the acquired land. Therefore, according to him, there is no infirmity or illegality in determination of the market value of the acquired land. He further submitted that the land owners/respondents were rightly granted the benefit of the amended provisions under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Act as the learned District Judge made the award, which was after the date of introduction of the amendment in the Act. 9. He further submitted that the land owners/respondents were rightly granted the benefit of the amended provisions under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Act as the learned District Judge made the award, which was after the date of introduction of the amendment in the Act. 9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that as far as determination of the market value of the acquired land by the impugned award is concerned, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the same. The learned District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record. After taking into consideration the various sale transactions produced in evidence by the land owners, the learned District Judge observed that those sale transactions clearly indicate that market value of the acquired land was higher than the one determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Land Acquisition Collector further relied upon the oral evidence led by the land owners i.e. statements of A.W.7 Gopi Chand, A.W.10 Gurbachan Singh, A.W.11 Asa Singh and A.W.12 Harpal Singh while determining the market value. I am of the opinion that the determination of the market value of the acquired land by the learned District Judge was just and reasonable. I do not find any valid reason for interfering in the said part award. However, I am of the opinion that the land owners/respondents are not entitled for additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act as in the instant case both the awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Act prior to 30.4.1982. In this regard the position of law is very clear as held in K.S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala and others, 1995(1) SCC 367. However, the learned District Judge has rightly awarded 30% solatium to the land owners under Section 23(2) of the Act. The land owners shall also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount as per Section 28 of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals qua determination of the market value at the rates mentioned in the impugned award are hereby dismissed. The land owners shall also be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount as per Section 28 of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals qua determination of the market value at the rates mentioned in the impugned award are hereby dismissed. However, the appeals are partly allowed qua the award of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and to that extent the impugned award passed by the learned District Judge is set aside, with no order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.