Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1428 (PNJ)

State of Punjab v. Rajinder Pall (died) LRs.

2003-10-15

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - This judgment shall dispose of six appeals i.e. R.F.A. Nos. 269, 438, 439, 256, 270 and 271 of 1989 as common question of law and fact arises in all these cases. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Punjab Government vide notification dated August 2, 1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) intended to acquire 34 kanals 3 marlas of land situated with the revenue estate of Siri Pandain in district Hoshiarpur for the public purpose, namely, for construction of the Kandi Canal. Declaration of the acquisition was issued on September, 6, 1982 under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on September 7, 1982. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated August 30, 1983 allowed the compensation as follows :- Chahi land Rs. 10,800/- per acre. Barani land Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin land Rs. 4,000/- per acre. 3. Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector the land-owners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Judge. The Additional District Judge, on receiving the reference and after going through the entire evidence led by both the sides vide his judgment dated October 8, 1998 awarded compensation of the land on the following rates :- Chahi land Rs. 21,875/- per acre. Barani land Rs. 17,500/- per acre. Gair Mumkin land Rs. 8,750/- per acre. 4. The claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits under the Act. It is against this judgment that the present appeals have been filed. 5. The short question that arises for consideration in the present case is - What was the market value of the land acquired at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act ? 6. The land-owners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre before the Reference Court. In order to substantiate their claim the following instances of sale were relied upon by the claimants :- See Table on Below Date of sale Exhibit of the sale-deed Area sold Class of land Sale consideration in Rs. Rate per marla in Rs. Rate per acre in Rs. one lac per acre before the Reference Court. In order to substantiate their claim the following instances of sale were relied upon by the claimants :- See Table on Below Date of sale Exhibit of the sale-deed Area sold Class of land Sale consideration in Rs. Rate per marla in Rs. Rate per acre in Rs. Distance from the acquired land 22.10.1982 A-8 1-10 Barani 4000/- 133/- 21280/- 400 Karams 22.6.1983 A-9 2-0 Barani 10000/- 250/- 40000/- 400 Karams 20.7.1982 A-10 0-6 Barani 10000/- 166/- 26560/- 11 Killas 15.6.1982 A-11 0-7 Barani 3500/- 500/- 80000/- 10 Killas 23.11.1979 A-12 1-10 Barani 2000/- 200/- 32000/- 200 Karams 18.5.1982 A-13 1-10 Barani 4450/- 450/- 72000/- 11 Killas 15.6.1982 A-14 0-7-1/2 Barani 4000/- 571/- 91360/- 10 Killas 14.9.1982 A-15 1-19 Barani 5500/- 136/- 21760/- 250 Karams 7. From a perusal of the above Table it is clear that sale Exhibits A-8, A-9 and A-15 cannot be considered as they related to a period after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, we are left with sale instances of Ex.A-10 dated 20.7.1982 by which 6 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 10,000/- i.e. at an average price of Rs. 26,560/- per acre; Ex.A-11 by which 0-7 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 3,500/- i.e. at an average price of Rs. 80,000/- per acre; Ex.A-13 by which 0-10 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 4,450/- i.e. at an average price of Rs. 72,000/- per acre and Ex.A-14 by which 0-7-1/2 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 4,000/- i.e. at an average price of Rs. 91,360/- per acre. All the aforementioned sales were of Barani land. Thus, it is clear that the market price of the land by virtue of the aforementioned sale deed was much more than what has been awarded by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Although the sale instances are of a small area but even if a cut is imposed, still the amount would work out to much more than what has been awarded by the Reference Court. By no stretch of calculation can the market value of the acquired land be determined below the amount what has been awarded by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. By no stretch of calculation can the market value of the acquired land be determined below the amount what has been awarded by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The State has led no cogent evidence to show that the market value of the land at the time of the acquisition was below the price which has been determined by the Court below. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated October 8, 1968. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.