Bishan Dass vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—By this order we propose to dispose of two connected Letters Patent Appeals bearing No. 119 of 1990 and 555 of 1990 as common questions of law and facts are" involved in both the appeals.

Short facts that need a necessary mention reveal that vide notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on December 29, 1978, State of Punjab Expressed its intention to acquire 7.43 acres of land in village Naloian, Hadbast No. 225, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur for canalising Nasrala Cho between city bridge and bye-pass bridge and for providing embankment on both sides. In due course a follow up declaration was issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated April 20, 1982, assessed the market value of land at the rate of Rs. 200/- per Maria as against the claim of appellants of Rs. 2,500/- per Maria. Dissatisfied, the claimant-appellants filed a reference application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter came up before the Additional Judge, Hoshiarpur who vide his award dated January 7, 1984 assessed Rs. 500/- per Maria as market price of the land at the relevant time when notification u/s 4 was issued. Still dissatisfied the claimants filed Regular First Appeal in this court and the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated August 21, 1989, assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 680/- per Maria. Inasmuch as some un-acquired land of the claimants had come in between the Bandh and had become a Cho, the claimants prayed that even the said land i.e. un-acquired land should also be assessed at the same rate as was the acquired land and the compensation paid to them accordingly. o While considering this matter, the learned Additional District Judge returned a firm finding of fact that- the land falling in between the two Bandhs was about ten feet and its breadth at the top was 22 feet while on the ground it was 45 feet. It was further held that, "I have no other alternative but to hold that the land falling in between the Bandh belonging to Surinder Singh etc. and said Bishan Dass has become useless completely. They are entitled to be awarded compensation in this behalf as well." Following the judgment of this Court in Narinder Kaur v. State of Punjab 1980 P.L.R. 473, the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, awarded compensation at the rate of 50% of the market value on the un-acquired land besides solatium and other statutory benefits. Still dissatisfied the claimants preferred Regular First Appeal in this Court which came up for decision on August 21, 1989 and as mentioned above, in so far as the acquired land is concerned, it was assessed at Rs. 680/- per Marias and so far as unacquired land which has been rendered useless is concerned, the learned single Judge allowed the claimants 50% of the market value. The said land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 340/- per Maria. This Court is given to understand that against the judgment of the learned single Judge the State as well filed the Letters Patent Appeal which in so far as determination of compensation with regard to acquired and unacquired land is concerned was dismissed. The appeal was, however, partly allowed with regard to benefits a claimant is entitled to u/s 23(1-A) of the Act.

In the present appeal preferred on behalf of the claimants, the only contention raised by Mr. M.L. Sarin, the learned Counsel representing them is that once the land had been rendered totally useless as is the finding of the learned Additional District Judge and was confirmed by the learned single Judge, the claimants were entitled to full compensation i.e. the unacquired land as well had necessarily to be assessed at the same rate i.e. Rs. 680/- per Maria.

During the course of arguments a consensus has been arrived at between the learned Counsel representing the parties. Mr. G.S. Grewal, Advocate General Punjab has stated that even the unacquired land of the petitioner may as such be held to have been acquired on a date when notification u/s 4 with regard to acquired land was issued and the claimants be given compensation at the same rate i.e. the one assessed by the learned single Judge with all other benefits but for the one as is admissible u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It appears to us that Mr. G.S. Grewal, the learned Advocate General has made the statement as the same is in the interest of the State. The State does not benefit to pay compensation even to- the extent of 50% if the land still continues to belong to the claimants and even if the land may not be put to any use by the claimants, the same can certainly be used for some purpose by the State. Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel representing the appellant accepts the statement made by Mr. Grewal and has also prayed that the unacquired land of the claimants be deemed to have been acquired and that notification for that purpose be deemed to have been issued u/s 4 on December 29, 1978 and the claimant-appellants be given compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs. 680/- per Maria with other statutory benefits as held by the learned single- Judge sans benefit permissible u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the unacquired land of the claimant-appellants shall be deemed to have been acquired and notification u/s 4 is, thus, deemed to have been issued on December 29, 1978, the appellant-claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 680/- per Maria and all other statutory benefits as granted to them by the learned single Judge but for the benefit that is admissible u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

These appeals are, thus, disposed of in the manner as indicated above. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned Counsel for the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.