Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 800 (PNJ)

Jagir Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2009-04-27

RAJESH BINDAL

body2009
Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below, seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. 2. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 5.46 acres, situated in the revenue estate of Nizampur Burail was acquired vide notification dated 28.2.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) for the purpose of setting up 66 K.V. Grid Sub Station and development of Sector 52-B, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) gave award of Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. 3. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by them on record to assess the fair value of the acquired land which is strategically located close to the already developed area of Chandigarh. The acquisition was made for setting up of a Grid Sub Station to supply power to the urbanised area in the vicinity. The land owners had produced on record sale deeds (Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) which have been totally ignored by the learned court below. Vide sale deed dated 12.10.1981 (Ex.P2), 4 Bighas and 16 Biswas of land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Vide sale deed dated 2.6.1982 (Ex.P3), 2 Kanals and 5 Marias of land was sold at an average price of Rs.5,26,000/- per acre. Vide sale deed dated 24.8.1982 (Ex.P4), 4 Kanals and 8 Marias of land was sold at an average price of Rs.6,80,000/- per acre. If the same are considered, compensation for the acquired land deserved to be increased further. It was further submitted that the area around the acquired land was already developed. 4. No one has appeared for the respondent. 5. If the same are considered, compensation for the acquired land deserved to be increased further. It was further submitted that the area around the acquired land was already developed. 4. No one has appeared for the respondent. 5. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, one fact, which was brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing was that in some other cases pertaining to the acquisition for the same purpose but pertaining to the land of village Kajheri, where the land owners did not produce any evidence except an earlier award pertaining to the acquisition in the vicinity, the Reference Court had determined the value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, which was upheld by this Court in R.F.A. No.2560 of 1987, decided on 25.2.2004. However, the fact remains that in the present appeals, the land owners had produced some evidence showing the sale of land in villages Badheri and Burail which is in the price range of Rs.5,26,000/- to Rs.6,80,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners has not referred to any site plan on record to show the exact location of the acquired land and the land dealt with in the sale deeds relied upon. Though the sale deeds showing better value of the land have been produced on record, but this court cannot compare the location thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land in the absence of site plan. As against that, the respondent had only produced on record sale deeds (Ex.R5 and Ex.R6). Sale deed (Ex.R5) pertained to the revenue estate of village Palsora. Even to show the location thereof, no site plan is there. Similarly, sale deed (Ex.R6) though pertained to village Kajheri, but it is sale of small portion of share in shamlat deh without mentioning the total area of shamlat. Even this sale deed is totally irrelevant. 6. However, a perusal of the site plan of Chandigarh Urban Complex shows that villages Badheri and Burail, to which the sale deeds produced by the land owners pertain, are located towards the area, which was already developed, whereas the area of village Nizampur Burail was in the process of development. Even this sale deed is totally irrelevant. 6. However, a perusal of the site plan of Chandigarh Urban Complex shows that villages Badheri and Burail, to which the sale deeds produced by the land owners pertain, are located towards the area, which was already developed, whereas the area of village Nizampur Burail was in the process of development. As there is some independent evidence produced by the land owners on record, on the basis of which the learned court below on guess work had determined the market value of the acquired, merely because in other cases on account of lack of evidence, the value had been determined at less rate will not detain this court from upholding the award, where on the basis of the material on record, better value has been assessed for the acquired land. 7. Considering these facts, the learned court below had granted compensation to the land owners @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, 1 do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.