Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1343 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Guru Dutt

2003-09-24

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the award dated 18.5.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the market value of the acquired land was determined @ Rs. 35,200/- per acre and the respondent-claimants were also awarded the benefits of 12% additional amount under Section 23 (1-A), 30% solatium under Section 23(2) and enhanced interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Vide notification dated 24.9.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Punjab acquired certain of land situated in Village Fatehabad, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, for the purpose of widening and strengthening the Tarn Taran-Goindwal road. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 26.11.1985, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 5,360/- per acre. 3. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the respondents-claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the market value of the acquired land and claimed that its market value should be assessed @ Rs. 80,000/- per acre. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, vide his award dated 18.5.1987, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 35,200/- per acre on the basis of an award dated 15.1.1985 (Ex.AW2/3) in which the similar land in the similar area was acquired by the State Government for widening the road in Fatehabad area vide notification dated 18.8.1978 and the market value of that acquired land was assessed @ Rs. 35,200/- per acre. 5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record of the case. 6. As per the site plan Ex.A1, the acquired land abuts Tarn Taran-Goindwal road and is situated within the abadi area. Some poultry farms and shops have also been shown in the site plan near the acquired land. The respondents- claimants produced on record two sale deed Ex.AW2/1 and Ex.AW2/2. They also produced on record the award dated 15.1.1985 (Ex.AW2/3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in respect of the land acquired on 18.8.1978 for widening of the road in Fatehabad area. The respondents- claimants produced on record two sale deed Ex.AW2/1 and Ex.AW2/2. They also produced on record the award dated 15.1.1985 (Ex.AW2/3) passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in respect of the land acquired on 18.8.1978 for widening of the road in Fatehabad area. The learned Additional District Judge in this case has relied upon the said award and determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 35,200/- per acre. I do not find any irregularity in determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the said award. In the said award, the land was acquired on 18.8.1978 in the area of Village Fatehabad for the same purpose i.e. widening the road. Though the respondents-claimants have produced on record two sale deeds indicating the value at a higher rate, but the learned Additional District Judge did not rely upon those sale transactions, but relied upon the award Ex.AW2/3. In my opinion, the compensation awarded to the respondents-claimants was just and reasonable. The appellant-State could not point out any material or evidence available on the record on the basis of which the amount of compensation awarded to the respondents could have been reduced. It is also not the case of the appellant State that the compensation awarded vide award dated 15.1.1985 (Ex.AW2/3) was further reduced in appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the respondent- claimants are not entitled for the benefit of additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. I do not find any force in this contention of the appellant State. In the instant case, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is dated 26.11.985 which is after the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982. Therefore, the respondents-claimants are entitled to the benefit of additional amount of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh etc., (1989) 2 SCC 754, K.S. Paripoornam (II) v. State of Kerala and others, (1995) 1 SCC 367 and Siddappa Vasappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2002(1) SCC 142. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.