Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 68 (PNJ)

Punjab State v. Joginder Singh

2009-01-12

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2009
JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral):- This common judgment shall dispose of 40 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.2009 to 2029, 2245, 2304, 2364 to 2370 of 1995, 570 to 572, 824, 1377, 1650, 1810, 1877 to 1879 of 1996 filed by the land owners/claimants as well as by the State of Punjab against the award of the Reference Court dated 10.4.1995 as identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals. However, fix convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA No.2009 of 1995 titled as The Punjab State and another Vs. Joginder Singh and another. 2. Land measuring 774 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Sheron, Tehsil Tarn Taran was notified under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 28.3.1985 followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 29.3.1985, for the public purpose, namely, for setting up of Majha Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Sheron. However, the total area involved in notification under Section 6 of the Act was found to be 774 kanals 10 marlas. The acquired land which was classificd as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 is reproduced as under:-­ Chahi 213 K - 9M Nehri 20 K - 12M Barani 502 K - 17M Banjar Jadid 36K -10M Gair Mumkin 1 K - 2M ---------------------- Total 774 K - 10M ---------------------- 3. The Sub Divisional Officer(C)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Tarn Taran (for short the ‘Collector’) vide his award dated 28.2.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates: Chahi Rs.10073/- per acre Barani Rs.7960/- per acre Banjar Jadid Rs.7960/- per acre Banjar Qadim Rs.7960/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs.7960/- per acre 4. The aggrieved land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, as such, they filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector which were referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. Both the parties to the lis led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Reference Court vide his award dated 10.4.1995 reassessed the compensation by giving a multiplier of 12 to the produce of two crops in a year and determined the compensation @ Rs.33,840/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.22,000/- per acre for Barani and Gair Mumkin land. The learned Reference Court vide his award dated 10.4.1995 reassessed the compensation by giving a multiplier of 12 to the produce of two crops in a year and determined the compensation @ Rs.33,840/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.22,000/- per acre for Barani and Gair Mumkin land. Aggrieved against this award of the Reference Court, both the State of Punjab and the land owners/claimants have come up in the aforesaid appeals. 5. Sh. H.S.Giani, learned counsel for the land owners/claimants has made two pronged attack on the judgment of the Reference Court alleging that Reference Court has committed an error of law firstly, while ignoring sale deeds Ex.A8 to Ex.A 12 on the ground that they pertain to a different village and secondly, the multiplier is inadequate and not in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. He further submitted that claimants have tendered into evidence the sale deed (Ex.A8) in respect of land measuring 6 kanals 14 marlas sold for Rs.41,875/- on 20.1.1987; sale deed (Ex.A9) vide which 8 kanals of land was sold for Rs.49,900/- on 23.7.1985; sale deed (Ex.A10) which pertains to 7 kanals 7 marlas of land sold for Rs.45,940/- on 10.6.1985; sale deed (Ex.A11) vide which 7 kanals of land was sold for Rs.43,750/- on 11.6.1985 and sale deed (Ex.A12) in respect of land measuring 7 kanals 4 marlas which was sold for Rs.45000/- on 23.7.1985. It is contended that the Reference Court has wrongly discarded the aforesaid sale deeds on the ground that all these sale deeds are post notification and are pertaining to a different village Rakh Sheron whereas land has been acquired in village Sheron. The learned counsel has also submitted that according to the statements of A W 4 and A W8, village Rakh Sheron is adjoining to village Sheron, therefore, the sale deeds of village Rakh Sheron should have been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that even for the sake of argument though not admitted, if the sale instances are not found to be relevant piece of evidence, the claimants are entitled to enhancement of multiplier in view of decision of Supreme Court in the case of The Executive Director Vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi & Another AIR 2000 SC 2619. Sarat Chandra Bisoi & Another AIR 2000 SC 2619. It is contended that learned Court below has itself relied upon the data collected by A W7 who has produced Charts Ex.AW7/15 and Ex. AW7/16 which relate to the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 which is in close proximity in time with the date of acquisition. It is further submitted that entire land has been found to be Chahi, yielding two crops and as per chart, net profit from paddy crop was Rs.1630/ - and wheat crop was Rs.1190/ -. Thus the total amount of compensation yield from one acre comes to Rs.2820/- in a year. The Reference Court had multiplied this amount with 12 in view of decision in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh and another 1995 (1) RLR 228 but now in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of The Executive Director Vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi (supra), learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that if the price of the two crops is taken Rs.2820/- per acre and is multiplied with 16, then the amount of compensation would come to Rs.45,120/- per acre as on the date when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. 6. As against this, counsel for the State of Punjab while pursuing all the appeals filed by the State and opposing the appeals filed by the land owners/claimants, contended that sale deeds which are mentioned in para 18 of the judgment, are pertaining to village Sheron where the prevalent market value was not more than Rs.9765/- per acre for Chahi land, therefore, the compensation should not have been more than Rs.9765/- per acre. Insofar as the alternative argument with regard to question of multiplier is concerned, counsel for the State could not find any fault with the approach of the Reference Court. 7. Now the question is whether the sale deeds which have been referred to by the State or by the claimants are to be relied upon or principle of multiplier is to be followed. 7. Now the question is whether the sale deeds which have been referred to by the State or by the claimants are to be relied upon or principle of multiplier is to be followed. Insofar as sale deeds which have been relied upon by the State in regard to the value of Rs.9765/- for Chahi land is concerned the same cannot be taken into consideration in view of Section 25 of the Act for the simple reason that value of sale deed is less than the award given by the Collector @ Rs.I0073/- per acre, therefore, these sale deeds have been rightly ignored. On the other hand, all the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants are post notification sale deeds which relate to small pieces of land which can not be set up an example to be equated with large chunk of acquired land measuring 774 kanals 10 marla and are also from another village. Thus, it would be just and expedient to grant a multiplier of 16 to the annual yield of crop per acre in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Executive Director Vs. Sarat Chandra Bisoi (supra). Consequently, the appeals filed by the claimant; are allowed and the compensation of the acquired land is fixed @ Rs.45120/- per acre with effect from the date when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued with all the statutory benefits under the provisions of the Amended Act along with costs of the appeals. So far as appeals filed by the State are concerned, the same are found to be without any merit and are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. ----------------------