Balbir Singh vs Union of India

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—In these two Regular First Appeals, Award dated 22.11.1993 passed by the District Judge, Faridkot (hereinafter referred to as the reference court) vide which two references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been answered, is under challenge wherein enhancement of compensation has been sought by the appellant-landowner.

Relevant facts in the tabular form are given as under:

Though the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar (for short, the Collector) had granted Rs. 23,000/- per acre as compensation but the appellants are aggrieved and seek Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre as compensation.

For convenience and clarity, further facts are being taken from RFA No. 681 of 1994 titled Balbir Singh son of Nazar Singh Vs. Union of India and another.

In both the appeals, grievance of the appellants is that potential value of the land was not taken into consideration. It is claimed that the land is located on Faridkot-Moga road and is only 20 yards away from abadi of the village. Many link roads leading to different villages are also nearby.

In case of RFA No. 681 of 1994, grievance of the appellant further is that expenses for setting up of the tubewell viz. Rs. 46,995/- had not been allowed and only compensation of the bore i.e. @ Rs. 5867.35 Ps. was allowed by the Collector and no enhancement was given by the reference court. It was also claimed that compensation with regard to non-availability of canal water affecting yield of crops (which was hitherto available) and with regard to shifting of residence from the acquired land to some other place had also not been considered for compensation. What has been demanded is as under:

(i) Rs. 20,000/- more per acre as compensation.

(ii) Rs. 45,000/- more for tubewell.

(iii) Rs. 5,000/- more for bore; and,

(iv) Compensation for non-receipt of canal water after acquisition of land resulting in damage to the crops.

Hearing has been provided.

Perusal of the impugned Award reveals that not only the strategic location of the land but even the incidental facts and relevant circumstances have duly been considered. From the perusal of the impugned Award, it is revealed that though the reference court had considered the locational aspects of the acquired land as also its potentiality in terms of its increasing strategic importance but had given compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre without any sound basis.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that the reference court has wrongly mentioned the date of issuance of notification in the impugned Award. Actually, the date is 5.6.1989 whereas it has been mentioned as 15.6.1989.

Out of the given sale instances, it is found that instances of sale even after the date of notification i.e. 5.6.1989 have been taken into consideration. Sale deed Ex. A7 is of 13.6.1990, whereas sale deed Ex. R1 is of 13.6.1989. Both are of later date than the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act. The only sale deed relevant for this purpose was Ex. A8 which is of 20.10.1987 wherein the land measuring 3 Kanals was sold for Rs. 16,000/-. This sale deed is not too remote in point of time with reference to the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act. This exemplar sale deed also pertains to the village of the acquired land and in addition to its potential has strategic location. For determining the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification, it is necessary to arrive at sale price of one acre of land sold vide sale deed Ex. A8. If we calculate the same, it comes to Rs. 42,664/-.

For an agriculturist, land is precious than anything else. He gets support and sustenance from it. Not only source of livelihood is provided by the land in the shape of agricultural produce for an agriculturist but he gets emotional strength as also financial succor from it. It is his prized possession.

When his land is compulsorily acquired for a public purpose, he submits meekly but his expectation that he will get fair compensation for acquisition of land is legitimate and is statutorily assured. His legitimate expectation should not be destroyed. It needs to be honoured at the earliest after acquisition of his land.

Unfortunately, neither the authorities under the Act view the entire matter through his eyes and vision, punctuated by his individual need based perception nor the payment is made expeditiously.

In Union of India Vs. Bachan Singh reported as 1989 PLJ 708 (P & H), it has been held that compensation depends upon what the person has been deprived of and does not depend upon the fact how the Government utilized the acquired property. In this judgment, another verdict of this Court rendered in RFA No. 1931/1984 (Union of India Vs. Chagar Singh) decided on 21st July 1988 had been cited. In the said verdict, it had been held as under:

The payment of compensation to a person whose property has compulsorily been acquired under the Act does not depend upon the fact as to how the acquiring authorities are going to utilise the acquired property and is rather dependent on the fact as to of what the person concerned has been deprived of.

Concededly, village Nathewala as a whole was lost in floods and inundation. The entire village was relocated just near the acquired land, where the landowners had their houses as well. Acquired land thus was very valuable for them. They were forced to even shift their houses.

Date of sale vide sale deed Ex. A8 is 20.10.1987. The date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act of the land under acquisition is 5.6.1989. Following Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in case The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, hike of 12% cumulatively for the gap period of 1 year and 8 months is being made to arrive at market price of the acquired land. This comes to Rs. 53,516/- per acre. Sequelly, market price of the acquired land on the date of acquisition is taken to be Rs. 53,516/-.

So far as compensation for tubewell is concerned, as per report Ex. A3, expenditure of Rs. 16,985/- was made. The reference court had noticed that the tubewell equipment was taken away by the claimant. Report submitted by the State proved by Kanungo Sham Lal as RW1 is Ex. R4 which had assessed the value of the tubewell as Rs. 5,865/-. Even if Dhanna Singh AW1 who proved report Ex. A3, had prepared the report in absence of any representative of Union of India, his report straightaway could not have been sidelined by observing that it was actuated by motive of its maker to the benefit of the claimant. If we go by the same standard, even report Ex. R4 of Kanungo Sham Lal (RW1) is prepared in absence of any representative of the claimants and can very well be said to benefit the respondents. Even if the fact of claimant having removed equipment is taken into consideration, increase of Rs. 5,000/- is fully justified for the tubewell. Therefore, over and above Rs. 5,865/- for tubewell installed in Killa No. 57, petitioner Balbir Singh is entitled to enhance compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.

So far as compensation with regard to absence of availability of canal water after acquisition of land and shifting of residence by the claimant is concerned, these are not incidental to the acquisition of land and thus these do not call for any compensation and thus rightly, no compensation was awarded on this count.

In RFA No. 886 of 1994, the appellant has urged that no compensation for the standing Cotton (Narma) crop, Kikar trees and 5 fruit trees has been granted by the reference court. Since no cogent evidence could be produced by the landowners before the reference court, no compensation on this count was granted. To convince the reference court that Award of the Collector was not correct, the landowners were required to produce evidence of impeccable character before the reference court. Nonetheless the reference court had duly considered the report of the Horticulture Department but had found no ground to differ with the findings of the Collector. Sequelly, there is no reason to take a different view from the view taken by the reference court on this aspect of the matter.

Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, RFA No. 681 of 1994 titled Balbir Singh son of Sh. Nazar Singh Versus Union of India and another is partly accepted to the extent as discussed earlier. So far as RFA No. 886 of 1994 titled Balbir Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh Versus Union of India and another is concerned, the same is dismissed.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.