Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 362 (PNJ)

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-03-24

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Regular First Appeals No. 2408, 982 and 1557 of 1990 filed by the claimants-land owners and Regular First Appeals No. 822 to 832 of 1991; 2672 to 2682 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab against the same award dated 1.9.1989 passed by District Judge, Patiala. 2. Vide notification dated 28.2.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Government of Punjab acquired a big chunk of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Chalheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for a public purpose, namely construction of SYL Canal. For the said acquisition, two different awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector. The first award, pertaining to the land measuring 105.77 acres of land, was made on 31.3.1984 and the second award, pertaining to 11.16 acres of land, was made on 30.6.1986. These appeals are arising from the second award. Vide the first award dated 31.3.1984, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land, by dividing the same in five categories, at the following rates :- i) Chahi-I Rs. 19,500/- per bigha ii) Chahi-II Rs. 10,000/- per bigha iii) Nehri Rs. 10,000/- per bigha iv) Rousli Rs. 15,000/- per acre v) Gair Mumkin Rs. 12,000/- per acre 3. Vide the second award dated 30.6.1986, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land, by dividing the same in four categories, at the following rates :- i) Chahi-II Rs. 10,000/- per bigha ii) Nehri Rs. 10,000/- per bigha iii) Rousli Rs. 15,000/- per acre iv) Gair Mumkin Rs. 12,000/- per acre 4. The claimants-land owners were also awarded all the statutory benefits under the Act. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the second award dated 30.6.1986, the claimants-land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which were disposed of by District Judge, Patiala, by a common judgment dated 1.9.1989. The Reference Court relied upon the judgment dated August 31, 1988, (Ex. The claimants-land owners were also awarded all the statutory benefits under the Act. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the second award dated 30.6.1986, the claimants-land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which were disposed of by District Judge, Patiala, by a common judgment dated 1.9.1989. The Reference Court relied upon the judgment dated August 31, 1988, (Ex. A3) passed by this Court in RFA No. 1406 of 1987, titled as Amar Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, arising out of the aforesaid first award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 31.3.1984, and determined the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:- i) All types of irrigated land falling within a depth of 100 karams on either side of the G.T. Road. Rs. 19,500/- per bigha ii) For the lands adjoining the Urban Estate Rajpura upto a depth of 50 karams irrespective of its revenue classification. Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre iii) All the irrigated lands irrespective of the source of irrigation and not covered by two belts. Rs. 15,000/- per bigha iv) Rausli Rs. 7,500/- per bigha v) Gair Mumkin Rs. 6,000/- per acre 6. On the aforesaid amount, the Reference Court also awarded solatium and interest according to the amended provisions of the Act. However, no reference has been made regarding award of additional amount @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Against this common award, the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the claimants-land owners and the State of Punjab. 7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. Admittedly, the award dated August 31, 1988 (Ex. A3) passed by this Court, has become final and the same was never modified either by this Court in LPA or by the Honble Supreme Court. In view of this, learned counsel for the parties could not make out any case for further enhancement or reduction of the compensation. However, learned counsel for the claimants-land owners, appearing in RFA No. 1557 of 1990 (Mohinder Singh others v. State of Punjab) referred to a judgment dated 4.11.1997 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1822 of 1989, titled as Subhash Chand and another v. State of Punjab and another, 1998(2) RCR(Civil) 146 (P&H) vide which the market value of land of category No. 1, was enhanced from Rs. 95,000/- (approximately) per acre to Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. But learned counsel could not connect the said case with the present acquisition. The said judgment does not pertain to any of the aforesaid two awards, made in this notification. Therefore, the said decision cannot be taken into consideration. 9. Secondly, learned counsel for the claimants-land owners argued that the claimants-land owners were entitled for the benefit of additional amount @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, as the date of award in the instant case is much after the cut off date i.e. 30.4.1982. This contention of the learned counsel is valid. The cliamants-land owners are certainly entitled to the benefit of 12% additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Regular First Appeals No. 2408, 982 and 1557 of 1990 filed by the claimants-land owners are partly allowed to the extent that in addition to the other statutory benefits i.e. solatium and interest, the claimants-land owners shall also be entitled to additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. However, Regular First Appeals No. 822 to 832 of 1991, 2672 to 2682 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab are dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.