Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 18 (PNJ)

Arjan Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-01-07

V.K.BALI

body2004
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - Whereas, aggrieved by inadequate compensation assessed by learned District Judge vide order dated 13.12.1986, the claimant-appellants have filed Regular First Appeal bearing No. 948 of 1987, aggrieved by the same very judgment, Cross Objections bearing No. 65-CI of 1987 have been filed by the State of Punjab seeking restoration of the compensation awarded by learned Land Acquisition Collector. Both, the appeal and the cross objections, thus, need to be decided together. 2. The minimum, but necessary, facts that have given rise to the present appeal and the cross objections reveal that the Government of Punjab, in its Irrigation and Power Department issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 29.9.1983 for a public purpose, i.e., for construction of Oxidation Pond for disposal of effluent for Central Colony, Anandpur Sahib. In due course of time, follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came into being and then award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 18.12.1984 assessing the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at the rate of Rs. 14,966/- per acre. On reference filed by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act, learned District Judge, Ropar, fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per acre, vide order dated 13.12.1986. 3. Learned District Judge, while assessing the market value of the land at Rs. 19,000/- per acre, took into consideration sale instance, Ex. P-5, dated 24.4.1979 vide which, an area of 2 kanals was sold at the rate of Rs. 48,000/- per acre. He also took into consideration sale instances, Exs. R-9 and R-10 dated 30.11.1982 and 1.9.1983 vide which, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 5,536/- and Rs. 3,886/- per acre, respectively. By working out an average of three sale deeds, referred to above, learned District Judge, as mentioned above, assessed market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per acre. 4. Mr. Saini, learned counsel representing the appellants, takes strong exception for reliance by learned District Judge upon sale instances, Exs. By working out an average of three sale deeds, referred to above, learned District Judge, as mentioned above, assessed market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per acre. 4. Mr. Saini, learned counsel representing the appellants, takes strong exception for reliance by learned District Judge upon sale instances, Exs. R-9 and R-10 and states that the sale deeds, which were not even taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector or represented the price far below than the one worked out by the Land Acquisition Collector, could not be legally taken into consideration by learned District Judge. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in The Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur through its Chairman v. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur through its President and others, (1985-2) PLR 663. This judgment, it is urged, has since been followed in number of judgments rendered by this Court. In The Improvement Trusts case (supra), this Court held that "By now, it is well established that a Collector while making an award under Section 11 of serving a notice on the owner of the land under Section 12 of the Act, acts as an agent of the Government or the authority for which he is acquiring the land that is the Trust in the instant case and the legal character of the award made by him is that of a tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government or the acquiring authority ...... In this view of the matter, the Tribunal committed no mistake in treating the Land Acquisition Collector as an agent of the Trust and the determination of the market value of the suit land by him as an offer of price on behalf of the Trust. In the light of this settled position, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in ignoring those sale instances produced and proved by the Trust whcih disclosed a lower rate of market value than what had been awarded by the Collector." This Court is in respectful agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge, as extracted above, and would further like to add that sale instances reciting a particular amount in the deed as such may not always be true. It is often observed that with a view to save stamp duty, which is quite exorbitant, the parties to a transaction intentionally show a low price. In any case, once the Collector himself ignored sale instances, Exs. R-9 and R- 10, there was no question that the same could have been taken into consideration by the Court for determining the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition. 5. Once, contention of learned counsel representing the appellants that sale instances, Exs. R-9 and R-10, could not be taken into consideration for determining market value of the land, is accepted, the question arises as to what should be the proper and just compensation in the present case. Before I might answer the question, as mentioned above, it requires to be mentioned that the land, subject matter of acquisition, had a potential of being converted into at least residential area in near future. Unchallenged findings of learned District Judge, as reproduced below, would manifest the same :- "Claimants produced PW1 Roshan Lal, Patwari of Circle Jhingri. According to him the Power Colony is at a distance of more than 200 karams from the acquired land. The municipal limits of Anandpur Sahib are at a distance of 250 karams from the acquired land. Khalsa College is at a distance of about half a kilometre from the acquired land. The "Dera" of Sadhas is at a distance of 100 karams, the abadi of village Nikkuwal is at a distance of 150 karams and Ropar-Nangal Road is at a distance of about 500 karams from the acquired land. The petrol pump is at a distance of 3/4th of a kilometre from the acquired land. A school also adjoins the petrol pump." 6. It further requires to be mentioned that sale instance, Ex.P-5 refers to the land situated in Rectangle No. 8 and Khasra Nos. 14/2 and 15/2, whereas the acquired land is in Rectangle Nos. 10 and 20. On the basis of what has been stated above, learned District Judge has returned a finding that sale instance, Ex.P-5, also does not refer to the sale of land immediately in close proximity to the acquired land. By arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, learned District Judge appears to have made an apparent mistake. One acre consists of 40x30 karams and one Rectangle consists of 5x5 acres. By arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, learned District Judge appears to have made an apparent mistake. One acre consists of 40x30 karams and one Rectangle consists of 5x5 acres. In other words, a Rectangle would consist of 200 karams from one side and 180 karams from the other. Rectangle 10, in any case, cannot be farther than 400 karams on one side and 360 karams from the other from sale instance, Ex.P-5. Be that as it may, once, the land, subject matter of acquisition, is held to have a potential of being converted into at least residential area in near future, a little bit of distance of the land representing sale instance, Ex.P-5, and the acquired land could not have made much difference. Coming now to the crucial issue as to what should be the market value of the land on the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, I may mention that no strait-jacket formula can be applied in the land acquisition matters. Fixation of market value of the land depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Considering the potential of the land, subject matter of acquisition, and taking into consideration sale instance, Ex.P-5, as the only relevant sale instance for determining the market value of the land as also the fact that only a small piece of land measuring 20 kanals 18 marlas was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Court is of the considered view that 1/5th cut of sale instance, Ex.P-5, would represent the proper and just compensation in the present case. It could have also been a case where 1/4th cut could be applied but 1/5th cut is being applied by this Court considering further that whereas, sale instance, Ex.P-5, is dated 24.4.1979, notification under Section 4 of the Act in this case was issued on 29.9.1983, i.e., four years after the land, subject matter of sale instance, Ex.P-5 was sold. A normal trend of increase in the price of real estates, thus, cannot be ignored. Based upon the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court, market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, would work out at Rs. 38,400/- per acre. The Court so orders. A normal trend of increase in the price of real estates, thus, cannot be ignored. Based upon the discussion made above, in considered view of this Court, market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, would work out at Rs. 38,400/- per acre. The Court so orders. Resultantly, whereas, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, by working out market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at the rate of Rs. 38,400/- per acre, cross objections filed by the State are found to be without any merit and are, thus, dismissed. It is conceded at all ends that the appellants shall be entitled to all the benefits of amended provisions pertaining to statutory benefits as the award by the Court in this case was after 30.4.1982. So ordered. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Appeal party allowed.