Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 954 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Chander Parkash

2003-07-16

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2003
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. This appeal relates to the year 1981 and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. I am of the considered view that the appeal should be heard on merits and as such I proceed to record the judgment. 3. Vide notification dated 26.3.1976 published on 30th March, 1976 (issued under section 4 of the of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Haryana acquired the land for constructing Feeder and Return Channel for supplying water to the Panipat Thermal Plant. The Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala, vide its award dated 14.9.1976 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre for the Chahi land, at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for barani land and at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per acre for Ghair mumkin land. Chander Parkash-respondent herein was owner of the land which was termed as Chahi land and compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded to him also. A supplementary award was also made in favour of one Shri Ashok Kumar. The claimants, thus, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act and on the pleadings of the parties, learned Reference Court framed the following issues: 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 2. Relief. 4. Parties were granted opportunities to lead evidence and vide award dated 31st August, 1981, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 51,200/- per acre. 5. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana with a prayer that the award in favour of the claimant-respondent be set aside and that of the Collector be restored for the reasons stated in the memorandum of Appeal. 6. Mainly, it is argued that the compensation awarded to the claimants is disproportionate to the actual market value of the land and there is no evidence to substantiate the same. It is also contended that the learned Reference Court has, without any basis, ignored the exhibit R2 to R5 the sale deeds produced by the respondents. 7. 6. Mainly, it is argued that the compensation awarded to the claimants is disproportionate to the actual market value of the land and there is no evidence to substantiate the same. It is also contended that the learned Reference Court has, without any basis, ignored the exhibit R2 to R5 the sale deeds produced by the respondents. 7. Having perused the record and having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the considered view that both these arguments are without any merit. 8. At the very outset, I may refer to the findings recorded by the learned reference court for granting the compensation to the claimant-respondent, which read as under:- "Out of the three instances relied upon by the claimants Ex.P6 appears to be the nearest. The sale in that case took place on 11.3.1976. Besides this transaction has also been relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge while giving award Ex.P2. In Ex.P2 the award related to 1/2 share of this very land i.e., share of Ashok Kumar, while awarding Rs. 51,200/- per acre, (though Rs. 50,000/- was awarded to Ashok Kumar as he had claimed only that much) the Court had relied upon sale transaction Ex.P6 (Ex.P8 in that case). Though according to the market value of the land per acre comes to Rs. 76800/- the same was slashed down to Rs. 51,200/-, per acre by giving a reduction of 1/3rd of the market value on the ground that the land involved was only 2 Bighas. For 1/2 share of this very land compensation has been awarded at Rs. 51200/- per acre. Following the instance of Ex.P6, I see no reason to differ with the reasoning and the finding regarding the rate of per acre arrived in that case. I, therefore, hold that the market value of the land at the time of notification was about Rs. 51200/-, per acre. I decide this issue accordingly in favour of the petitioner." 9. No fault can be found in the above reasoning of the learned reference court, as substantial cut was applied to sale consideration reflected in the sale deeds, which were admissible in evidence. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to why the sale deeds are inadmissible or they do not reflect the correct value for the purpose of determining the extent of compensation payable to the claimants. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to why the sale deeds are inadmissible or they do not reflect the correct value for the purpose of determining the extent of compensation payable to the claimants. Furthermore, exhibits R2 to R5, except exhibit R3 are the mutations, which relate to a period much prior to the notification issued under section 4 of the Act. It was discussed by the Reference Court that exhibit R3 could not form the correct basis as per the sale deed/mutation entries and thus was not a factor merely indicating fair market value of the land, in question. Exhibits R2 & R5 are of much earlier in point in time to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Exhibit R2 relates to a period of September, 1977. Furthermore value reflected in exhibit R2 would be nearly Rs. 9,800/- per acre, which in fact is less than the award given by the Collector itself which was Rs. 15000/- per acre. 10. It is settled principle of law duly approved by the statutory provision, that the Court cannot grant compensation less than the amount awarded by the Collector itself.In find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.