Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 71 (PNJ)

Jagdish v. State of Haryana

2004-01-21

VINEY MITTAL

body2004
ORDER Viney Mittal, J. - Vide a notification dated February 5, 1981 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the land belonging to the claimant-landowners was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated March 30, 1981, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 10,000/- per acre for barani land. The claimant-landowners were dissatisfied and as such claimed a reference. The matter was duly referred under section 18 of the Act. 2. During the course of reference proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge, the parties led their evidence. The claimant-landowners besides the oral evidence, relied upon Ex.P1, a copy of the judgment dated March 27, 1985 passed by the reference court in some other acquisition proceedings. The respondent relied upon documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4, the copies of mutations. 3. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of the aforesaid evidence of the parties, assessed the market value or the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs. 14,000/- per acre for the entire acquired land. 4. The claimant-appellants have felt dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the present appeal. 5. I have heard Shri C.B. Goel, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri R.D. Sharma, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 6. Shri C.B. Goel, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has primarily argued that the claimant-landowners had produced a copy of an earlier award dated March 27, 1985 (Ex. P1) on the record. The land covered under the aforesaid acquisition proceedings was just adjoining the land which had been acquired in the present case. According to the learned counsel, there was absolutely no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to have ignored the aforesaid award Ex.P1 and assess any compensation less than that. P1) on the record. The land covered under the aforesaid acquisition proceedings was just adjoining the land which had been acquired in the present case. According to the learned counsel, there was absolutely no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to have ignored the aforesaid award Ex.P1 and assess any compensation less than that. It has further been argued by Shri Goel that not only in the proceedings culminating into the award Ex.P1, the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on July 28, 1979 i.e. almost a period of 16 months prior to the issuance of the notification in the present case which was issued on February 5, 1981 but, the land covered under the aforesaid earlier proceedings was inferior than the land acquired in the present case. On that basis, it is argued that the claimant-landowners in the present appeal were entitled to even higher compensation than which was granted under the award Ex.P1. 7. On the other hand, Shri R.D. Sharma, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has argued that there was no scope for further enhancement of compensation than already assessed by the learned Additional District Judge. According to Shri Sharma, the learned Additional District Judge had assessed the market value of the acquired land keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. A perusal of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge shows that it had been noticed by him that the land covered under the award Ex.P1 was just adjoining the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in the present proceedings. There is absolutely no evidence led by the respondent to rebut the evidence led by the claimants except the documents Ex.R1 to R.4. The aforesaid documents are merely mutations which do not have any evidentiary value to indicate the sale consideration of the various sale transactions covered under the aforesaid mutations. 9. In fact if the award Ex.P1 is taken into consideration then the land covered under the aforesaid award was just adjacent to the acquired land in the present case, and therefore there is absolutely no justification to award any lesser amount to the claimant-appellants in the present case. The approach of the learned Additional District Judge in ignoring the aforesaid award Ex.P1 by holding that the entire land in Ex. The approach of the learned Additional District Judge in ignoring the aforesaid award Ex.P1 by holding that the entire land in Ex. P1 was of different kind and had been treated on uniform basis and as such the same could not be taken to be forming any basis for assessment of a compensation, cannot be legally sustained. In fact the perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Additional District Judge also shows that the entire acquired land has been assessed on uniform basis. 10. As far as the argument of Shri Goel that the quality of the present acquired land was superior than the land covered under Ex.P1 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The claimant-landowners have not been able to lead any evidence on record to suggest any such conclusion. For want of evidence, the said argument, on the bald statement of the claimant, was liable to be rejected. 11. With regard to the question as to whether the claimant-appellants were entitled to any higher compensation than that granted in the award Ex.P1, it may be noticed that the notification for acquisition proceeding of the land covered under the award Ex.P1 was issued on July 28, 1979. The notification under section 4 of the Act in the present proceedings was issued on February 5, 1981 i.e. almost after a period of 16 months. In these circumstances, the claimant-appellant were also entitled to some increase on the valuation over and above the valuation assessed in the award Ex.P1. In my considered view, keeping in view the general trend of rise in prices, the claimants would also be entitled to a 10% increase over and above the valuation of Rs. 15000/- per acre assessed in the award Ex.P1. 12. Accordingly, I hold that the claimant-appellants would be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 16500/- per acre as compensation being the fair market value of the acquired land on the date of the notification in the present appeal. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is allowed and it is directed that the claimant-appellants shall be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 16,500/- per acre as the market value of the acquired land in the present appeal. Besides this, the claimant-appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits under the amended provisions of the Act as admissible to them in accordance with law. 14. 16,500/- per acre as the market value of the acquired land in the present appeal. Besides this, the claimant-appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits under the amended provisions of the Act as admissible to them in accordance with law. 14. The present appeal is allowed in the terms stated above. The claimant- appellants shall also be entitled to the proportionate costs. Appeal allowed.