Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1389 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab And Anr. v. Ashok Kumar And Ors.

2003-10-08

J.S.NARANG

body2003
Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of RFAs No. 1632 to 1638 of 1988, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals. For brevity, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 1632 of 1988. 2. The Government of Punjab acquired additional area of 47.57 acres of land by virtue of notification No. 10688 dated 4.6.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The land is situated in the revenue estate of village Thara Uprala Teeka Salwal, Teeka Dhar Dalla and Teeka Dalla, Hadbast No. 889 Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and that the area was acquired for Magazines of Thein Dam Project (now known as Ranjit Sagar Dam) i.e. for public purpose. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide declaration No. 10672 dated 4.6.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector, Thein Dam Project, Shahapur Kundi delivered the award dated February 28, 1985, awarding compensation differently for different landowners owning different classes of the land, which, read as under:- MN_61.htm Additionally 12% per annum increase on the estimated rate with effect from 23.6.1985 to 28.2.1986, interest had been granted at the rate of 12% and that solatium at the rate of 30%, However, upon the exact measurement the acquired area, when calculated, came to be 46.73 acres. 3 Landowners felt dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, consequently, filed applications under Section 18 of the Act, seeking reference to the Reference Court. AH these applications were consolidated by an order dated April 22, 1987, and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in LAC case No. 94 of 1986, titled as Kato v. State of Punjab, and the same was to be read in all other cases. The claimants claimed Rs. 400/- per Maria as compensation in respect of all kinds of lands which had been contested by the State and the requisite pleadings had been filed before the Reference Court. Upon the pleadings of the parties the issues had been struck and the parties led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. 4. The claimants have not been able to produce the admissible evidence to prove the transactions of sales having taken place in the area. It has not been established that if any sale was effected of any land having similar rate as the land acquired accordingly. 4. The claimants have not been able to produce the admissible evidence to prove the transactions of sales having taken place in the area. It has not been established that if any sale was effected of any land having similar rate as the land acquired accordingly. However, some maps sanctioned by the competent authority in respect of the land sold have been referred to but they pertain to the land measuring less than one Kanal and that the sale price of one Kanal has been shown as Rs. 2000/-. It is axiomatic that the instances of sale of tiny areas in comparison to the chunk of land acquired, cannot be taken into consideration while determining the market value. 5. One the other hand, the Government produced the sale deed which has been exhibited as Ex.R3, which is indicative of the fact that the sale had taken place of land measuring 5 Kanal 5 Marias for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-. Likewise another sale deed which has been exhibited as Ex.R4, pertains to the land measuring 2 Kanals and that the sale consideration is Rs. 1500/-. Similarly, the sale deed Ex.R6 pertains to 28 Kanals 17 Marias for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. Similarly, some other sale deeds have also been exhibited which have been described as Ex.R6 and R7 which had been executed in February 1986 i.e. after the acquisition, as such, are of no consequence, 6. However, it has been conceded before the Reference Court that some other area of village Teeka Salwal was acquired vide notification dated March 1, 1985, for the same purpose defined as public purpose. In respect of that land, the market value had been determined by the Reference Court at Rs. 10,000/- per acre at flat rate for all kinds of lands. Since the land comprised in the present notification also fell in the same village and so also in the neighboring villages, the Reference Court had no reason to opine differently for arriving at the market value in respect of the land which is subject matter in the present appeal. Consequently, it has been held that the compensation shall be payable to the claimants at the flat rate of Rs. Consequently, it has been held that the compensation shall be payable to the claimants at the flat rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre for all kinds of lands and that the applicant shall also be entitled to 12% per annum increase on the enhanced market value for the period commencing on or before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier, under Section 23(I-A) of the Act. Solatium has been granted at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount for the first one year from the date of possession and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent years till realisation. 7. The State felt dissatisfied with the award dated May 3, 1988, passed by the Reference Court and that the present appeals have been filed. 8. After perusal of the record and evidence brought on record and so also the view of the Reference Court that earlier the market value has been assessed at Rs. 10000/- flat rate formal kinds of lands, the awarding of compensation could not be differed with. The learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab has not been able to disclose as to whether the award by the Reference Court in respect of the lands falling in village Teeka Salwal acquired by notification dated March 12, 1985, had been challenged before this Court. If that award has remained unchallenged and the market value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Reference Court, has been accepted by the Government there is no reason to differ with the award of the Reference Court which has been challenged by way of the present appeal. In any case, learned Assistant Advocate General has not been able to address any meaningful argument for reducing the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court. Consequently, all the appeals arc dismissed with no order as to costs.