Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1071 (PNJ)

Punjab State Through The Collector v. Mangat Ram

2003-08-06

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of RFA No. 2179 of 1986, RFA No. 2180 and Cross Objection No. 152-CI of 1986 in RFA No. 2180 of 1986, as they arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur. 2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on January 27, 1984. Land measuring 22 kanals 10 marlas owned by Khushi Ram and land measuring 22 kanals 18 marlas owned by Mangat Ram was acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated March 29, 1984 assessed the market value of the land Rs. 4,976/- per acre was assessed as the market value of Barani land, whereas the Banjar Qudim land was assessed at Rs. 1,792/- per acre. 3. The claimants felt dissatisfied. They claimed reference. The matter was referred to the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The learned District Judge on the basis of the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that Rs. 10,000/- was adequate market value for the acquired land and as such held that the claimants were entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre for their acquired land. Additionally, the claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits. 4. The State of Punjab has filed the two appeals challenging the award passed by the learned District Judge. It has been claimed that the enhancement granted by the learned District Judge was contrary to the record and excessive. Additionally, the claimant Khushi Ram has filed Cross-objections in RFA No. 2180 of 1986. In the Cross-objections a claim has been made for further enhancement. 5. I have heard Sh. P.S. Thiara, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants and Ms. Jagdeep Bains, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents/Cross-objectors and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 6. In my considered opinion, the present appeals as well as the cross-objections have no merit and as such deserve to fail. 7. The claimants, in support of their claim for enhancement, relied upon a few sale instances. Exhibit P-1 is the sale deed March 25, 1985 for the sale of 2 kanals of land for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. 7. The claimants, in support of their claim for enhancement, relied upon a few sale instances. Exhibit P-1 is the sale deed March 25, 1985 for the sale of 2 kanals of land for a sale consideration of Rs. 4,000/-. Exhibit P2 is the sale deed dated September 25, 1984 with regard to the sale of 2 kanals 3 marlas of land for a sale consideration of Rs. 12,900/-. Sale deed Exhibit P2 is dated September 5, 1983 whereby 10 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,000/-. Exhibit P4 is the sale deed dated May 29, 1985 with regard to the sale of 13 kanals 18 marlas of land for a total sale consideration of Rs. 30,500/-. Besides, the aforesaid sale deeds, the claimants also appeared themselves. They produced PW1- Dhanna Singh Draftsman. PW2 Mahan Dev appeared and stated that he had purchased 2 kanals and 2 kanals and 3 marlas of land vide two separate sale deed Exhibit P1 and P2, PW3 Dharam Pal proved this sale of land covered by the sale deed Exhibit P3. W Dewan Chand deposed about the sale of land covered by sale deed Exhibit P4. PW5 Mangat Ram is the claimant himself. He stated that the acquired land was on Mehilpur Maili road on its eastern side. He had sold a part of his land on the western side of the road just opposite to the acquired land before acquisition @ Rs. 16,000/- per killa to Dharam Pal and others. They had purchased the land for construction of residential house. The Government High School Maili is quite close to the acquired land and the village abadi is about two furlongs from the acquired land. It was further claimed by PW5 that he had got the land levelled earlier to the acquisition through the Department of Soil Conservation and spent Rs. 12,000/- which was to be paid in instalments. He also claimed that 50 shisham trees and kikkar trees were standing in the acquired land. He claimed that at the time of acquisition, the acquired land was worth Rs. 16,000/- per acre. 8. In contrast to the evidence of the claimants, the respondents produced Ramesh Kumar Patwari RW1, who produced the mutations Exhibits P2 and R3 and a copy of the Aks Shajra Exhibit R1. RW1 Ramesh Kumar Patwari admitted that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 9,000/- per acre. 16,000/- per acre. 8. In contrast to the evidence of the claimants, the respondents produced Ramesh Kumar Patwari RW1, who produced the mutations Exhibits P2 and R3 and a copy of the Aks Shajra Exhibit R1. RW1 Ramesh Kumar Patwari admitted that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 9,000/- per acre. 9. In view of the various sale instances, as well as, the admission of RW1 Ramesh Kumar Patwari, produced by the respondents themselves, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 10,000/- per acre at the time of the acquisition. Accordingly, the aforesaid amount was awarded. 10. The sale instances, Exhibits P1 and P4 are much after the date of Section 4 Notification. In fact vide sale deed Exhibit P1, land measuring 2 kanals was sold for Rs. 4,000/- on March 25, 1985. Similarly, vide sale deed Exhibit P4, the land measuring 13 kanals 18 marlas was sold on May 29, 1985 for Rs. 30,500/-. Notification under Section 4 was issued on January 24, 1984. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid sale instances Exhibit P1 and P4 are much after the issuance of aforesaid notification under Section 4 and as such cannot be taken to be reflecting any yardstick for determination of the market value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition. 11. Similarly, the sale instance Exhibit P2 is dated September 25, 1984. The aforesaid sale was also conducted after the Section 4 Notification was issued. The claimants are left with only Exhibit P3. Exhibit P3 is the sale instance dated September 5, 1983 whereby only 10 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,000/-. The said sale instance by itself may not have been sufficient to determine the market price of the acquired land since it pertains to a very small piece of land. However, when the aforesaid sale instance is taken into consideration conjointly with the statement of RW1 Ramesh Kumar Patwari, then the aforesaid sale instance assumes importance. Ramesh Kumar Patwari, RW1 has very candidly admitted that at the time of the acquisition of the land in question, the market rate of similar lands was not less than Rs. 9,000/- per acre. Exhibit P3 reflects the market value of the land covered by the said sale transaction at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Ramesh Kumar Patwari, RW1 has very candidly admitted that at the time of the acquisition of the land in question, the market rate of similar lands was not less than Rs. 9,000/- per acre. Exhibit P3 reflects the market value of the land covered by the said sale transaction at Rs. 10,000/- per acre. When the aforesaid sale instance is read in conjunction with the statement of patwari then it can very safely be inferred that the market price of the acquired land was Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Another fact which can be taken notice of is that sale instances Exhibit P1, P2 and P4, though not reflecting any yardstick for determination of the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4, can still be taken into consideration to notice that there was a trend in the area whereby the prices of the land were on rise. Thus, Rs. 10,000/- as determined by the learned District Judge, can safely be taken to be an adequate market price for the acquired land. 12. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant that the acquired land was of lesser value. As a matter of fact, the respondents have felt satisfied by not leading any evidence in the shape of sale deeds. 13. In this view of the matter, I do not find any justification to reduce the market, value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned District Judge. 14. The detailed discussion above would also lead to only conclusion that there is no force in the cross-objections filed by the claimant Khushi Ram also. As noticed above, the claimants have failed to lead any cogent evidence to show that the acquired land could have fetched more value on the date of Section 4 Notification. In the absence of any further evidence, led by the claimants, there is no scope for coming to the conclusion that the market value, as assessed by the learned District Judge, was in any manner inadequate. Accordingly, I find no force in the cross-objections filed by the objector Khushi Ram, as well. 15. As a result of the above said discussion, I find no force in the present appeals, as well as the cross-objections. Accordingly, the appeals as well the cross-objections are dismissed, with no order, as to costs.