Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 84 (PNJ)

Jaswant Singh v. State Of Punjab

2009-01-13

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of 17 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2456 to 2469, 2535 to 2637 of 1993 filed by the land owners/claimants as identical question of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 2456 of 1993 titled as Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and another. 2. Land measuring 20.16 acres situated in village Naglian, Tehsil Kharar District Ropar was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the, `Act) dated 24.3.1988. followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 8.4.1988 for public purpose, namely, for the construction of High Level Distributory. On actual measurement, the acquired land was found to be 19.23 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Punjab, Patiala (for short `the Collector) vide his award No. 438/R-SYL dated 30.5.1990 classified the acquired land as under :- 19_A_htm.htm 3. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, therefore, they preferred Objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs. 5 Lacs per acre. Both the claimants as well as the respondent-State of Punjab led their oral and documentary evidence. The claimants had examined PW1 Nachhatar Singh, who had stated that acquired land is Chahi and is at a distance of 10-12 kms. from Chandigarh. The claimants also produced on record copes of the sale deeds Fx.A1 to Ex.A4, which are tabulated as under : 19_B_htm.htm 4. As against this, the respondent-State did not lead any oral evidence but tendered copy of sale deed Ex. R1 vide which land measuring 13 Kanals 4 marlas situated in the revenue limits of viiiage Naglian was sold for Rs. 24,000/- per acre. Besides the above evidence, the claimants had also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of The State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., 1990(1) PLR 278. whereby land of village Polwal, Tehsil Rajpura was acquired for the construction of SYL Canal. In that case, an agreement between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and Members of Action Committee was tendered as evidence vide which the then Chief Minister, Punjab had announced that Rs. One lac per acre shall be awarded as value of the Chahi land. In the said case, Rs. In that case, an agreement between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and Members of Action Committee was tendered as evidence vide which the then Chief Minister, Punjab had announced that Rs. One lac per acre shall be awarded as value of the Chahi land. In the said case, Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre was awarded instead of Rs. One lac as announced by the then Chief Minister, Punjab on the ground of potentiality of the acquired land which was found to be lying within the Periphery Control Act. 5. In the present case, however, it has been found that land of village Naglian does not come under the Periphery Control Act, therefore, keeping in view the fact that a settlement between the then Chief Minister, Punjab and Members of the Action Committee could be taken as a piece of evidence for consideration of the market value, the Reference Court vide impugned award dated 21.4.1993 reassessed the market value at the following rates :- 19_C_htm.htm 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that award of the Reference Court does not call for any further interference as compensation which has been assessed is on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the then Chief Minister and Members of the Action Committee which has already been taken note of as a piece of evidence in the case of The State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc. (supra). It is also contended that since the land in question does not fall within the Periphery Control Act, therefore learned Reference Court has rightly not awarded an additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of potentiality. Learned counsel for the State has further argued that the appellant has failed to show any rising trend in the value of the land of village Naglian since 21.5.1985 when land measuring 10 Marlas was sold for Rs. 6000/- per acre and the learned counsel has also failed to locate the said sale instance on record with the help of a site plan. 6000/- per acre and the learned counsel has also failed to locate the said sale instance on record with the help of a site plan. It is also contended by the counsel for the State that 10 Marla of land cannot be considered to be an agricultural land which could be most probably purchased by the vendee, who has not been examined, for any purpose other than the agricultural which could be for residence or commercial, therefore, it cannot be equated with the rest of the land which is purely agricultural in nature. 7. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 8. In my view, the sale deed Ex.A2 dated 21.5.1985 pertaining to land measuring 10 marlas only, which has been relied upon by the appellant cannot be made basis for determination of compensation in this case because neither the appellant has pointed out the location of the sale instance on record with the help of a site plan nor it can be deemed to be a comparable sale instance in respect of the land measuring 20.16 acres which was purely agricultural at the time of acquisition since 10 marlas of land could not be used for agricultural purpose and must have been purchased by the vendee, who has not been examined, for the purpose other than the agricultural which could be either residential or commercial. In such a situation, the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of The State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc. (supra) and awarded compensation accordingly. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I find that compensation which has been assessed by the Reference Court on the basis of evidence of settlement between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and Members of the Action committee, does not call for any further interference and as such, Award of the Reference Coals is upheld and the appeals filed by the claimants are hereby dismissed witiout any order as to costs.