Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1240 (PNJ)

Sarjo v. State of Punjab

2003-09-03

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar, Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of two Regular First Appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1987 in which common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. These appeals have been filed by the claimants-land owners against the award dated 24.9.1986 passed by the District Judge, Ropar vide which the market value of the acquired land has been fixed at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per acre treating the acquired land of the appellant as Chahi. Vide notification dated 4.2.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Punjab acquired huge chunk of land in village Chilla for expansion of the Industrial Focal Point, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. On the same date, the lands in other villages namely, Kumbra, Kambali and Kambala were also acquired for the same purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 22.12.1983 assessed the market value of the acquired land of all the villages including the village in question at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- per acre for Abi land. The land of the appellants was treated as Abi land. 3. Feeling dissatisfied against the aforesaid award, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. It was pleaded that the acquired land was actually the Chahi land as the same was irrigated with water of Ganda Nala and for the Chahi type of land even the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per acre in villages Kumbra, Kambali and Kambala. The learned District Judge on the basis of the evidence recorded a finding that the land in question was wrongly assessed as Abi and the same should have been treated as Chahi land and the market value of the acquired land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 85,000/- per acre. While assessing the market value of the acquired land of the appellants of village Chilla, the learned District Judge put reliance upon a judgment dated 13.8.1986 passed by the then District Judge, Ropar in Land Reference No. 36 of 21.2.1985, in which the market value of the acquired land in village Kambala was also assessed at the aforesaid rate. 4. While assessing the market value of the acquired land of the appellants of village Chilla, the learned District Judge put reliance upon a judgment dated 13.8.1986 passed by the then District Judge, Ropar in Land Reference No. 36 of 21.2.1985, in which the market value of the acquired land in village Kambala was also assessed at the aforesaid rate. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the market value of the acquired land in villages Kumbra, Kambali and Kambala was fixed at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre by a Division Bench of this Court in Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 20. It has been submitted that the instant appeal of the appellants is squarely covered by the said decision and the appellants are entitled for compensation of the acquired land at the same rate, i.e. Rs. 1,75,000/-. 5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. After going through the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harchal Singhs case (supra) and the impugned award, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellants is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. The learned counsel for the respondent has also not disputed this position. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "7. The four villages are in the near vicinity of each other and are part of S.A.S. Nagar/Mohali and this town is adjoining Union Territory of Chandigarh on one side and, therefore, has acquired potential for urbanisation. In Mohali itself lot of construction had come up before the acquisitions in dispute and therefore contiguous villages on this ground had also gained potential for urbanisation. Once urbanisation has come up and the acquired land has gained potential for that purpose it will be wholly wrong to classify the land on the basis of agricultural quality. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire land including those which are Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim cannot be kept in a separate category for fixing price. However, if it is found that the land is in depression because of Chhapper (Pond) or because of Khatan, lesser price may have to be fixed. 8. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire land including those which are Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim cannot be kept in a separate category for fixing price. However, if it is found that the land is in depression because of Chhapper (Pond) or because of Khatan, lesser price may have to be fixed. 8. Before this Court, cases relating to acquisition of numerous villages in the Union Territory, Chandigarh for extension of Sections came up for consideration in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1207 of 1981 Jaswant Singh v. Union of India decided on 22.9.1982 wherein it was urged that there was hardly any scope for giving different/varied market price of land in different villages on the basis of its potentiality, it was held that it was appropriate to fix uniform rate for the land acquired in all the villages. The facts in these cases are similar and for the reasons recorded in Jaswant Singhs case (supra) we are of the view that the land acquired in all the four villages deserves to be allowed market value at the uniform rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. We order accordingly. 9. For some land situated in village Kambala the learned Single Judge has allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,16,700/- per acre on the ground that it was Gair Mumkin and Banjar and Qadim. It is true that the Collector had made these two categories but once was have come to the conclusion that the acquired land had potential for urbanisation, the fixing of market price on the basis of agricultural quality loses its significance. Accordingly for Gair Mumkin and Banjar Qadim land situated in village Kambala we fix compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre and modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge accordingly. 10. In view of the above, for all qualities of land other than in Chhapper (Pond) or in Khatan (in depression) in villages Kambala, Mataur and Sohana we fix compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre and the award of the District Judge or the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as the case may be, stands modified accordingly." 7. 1,75,000/- per acre and the award of the District Judge or the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as the case may be, stands modified accordingly." 7. In the instant case, the learned District Judge assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the judgment dated 13.8.1986 passed by the then District Judge, Ropar in Land Reference No. 36 of 21.2.1985, in which the market value of the acquired land in village Kambala was also assessed at the aforesaid rate. Therefore, I have no hesitation to enhance the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench of this Court which pertains to the same notification of villages Kambali and Kambala. Accordingly, I allow both these appeals and determine the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre and the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the aforesaid rate. On the enhanced amount, the appellants shall be entitled to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, 12% per annum additional amount under section 23(1-A) of the Act for the period commencing on and from Act to the date of the publication of the notification under section 4 of the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier; and interest at the rate of 9% for one year and 15% for subsequent years till its payment under Section 28 of the Act. In case the appellants-claimants have not paid the requisite sufficient court-fee on the amount enhanced by his award, they are allowed three months time to make-up the deficiency in court-fee. In case of default, the claim of the appellants would be taken to have been decreed only to the extent to which they have already paid the court-fee. Appeal allowed.