Gurbax Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Singhvi, J.—These appeals have been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgments of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.1988.

The facts necessary for deciding the common question of law raised in these appeals are that vide notification dated 17.1.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''the Act of 1894''), the Government of Punjab acquired land measuring 147 Bighas 3 Biswas for the purpose of setting up grain market New Morinda Mandi at Morinda, District Ropar. However, without finalising the acquisition proceedings in accordance with Sections 5A, 6 and 9 of the Act, the government invoked emergency provisions and took possession of the land on 24.1.1977. These proceedings were successfully challenged by the landowners in C.W.P. No. 2151 of 1977 Inder Singh etc. v. State of Punjab and others. That petition was allowed by the High Court on 22.9.1978 on the ground that there was no urgency for setting up the grain market (1978 P.L.J. 385). Thereafter, the government initiated acquisition proceedings afresh by issuing notification dated 2.1.1979 under Section 4 of the Act. The final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4.2.1982 and the possession was taken on 31.3.1982. The Land Acquisition Collector passed two awards for payment of compensation to the landowners. He divided the acquired land in 3 blocks and fixed separate market value of the land falling in each block.

The reason given by the Collector for dividing the land in three blocks was that the land falling in Block ''A'' was close to MorindaChamkaur Sahib and MorindaLudhianaChandigarh road. Block ''B'' was adjoining to the land of block ''A'', whereas the land forming part of block ''C'' was comparatively at a distant place from the land falling in block ''A'' and block ''B''. The details of the land falling in three blocks and its market value are given below :

Block ''A'' :

40 Bighas 10 Biswas at the rate of Rs. 69,120/ per acre.

Block ''B'' :

44 Bighas 10 Biswas at the rate of Rs. 58,560/ per acre.

Block ''C'' :

62 Bighas 2 Biswas at the rate of Rs. 48,000/ per acre.

Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners filed 13 reference applications which were consolidated by the order of the Reference Court dated 15.12.1983. After framing common issues and recording evidence produced by the parties in Reference No. 80 of 1983, titled Kaushalya Devi v. State of Punjab the learned District Judge, Ropar passed the award dated 2.3.1985. He ordered the payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ per acre in respect of land falling in revised block ''A'' and Rs. 60,000/ per acre in respect of the remaining land. He also directed payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/ to Gurbax Singh and Balbir Singh in respect of the tubewell and the pipe line and another sum of Rs. 35,000/ to Gurbax Singh for the constructions. Balbir Singh was directed to be paid Rs. 7,600/ of compensation in respect of the constructions existing on his land.

The landowners as well as the State of Punjab filed 7 and 14 appeals respectively against the award of the learned District Judge. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed all the appeals subject to the direction that the claimants shall be paid solatium at the rate of 30% per annum with an additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market value in terms of Section 23(2) read with Section 23(1A) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year of their dispossession and at the rate of 15% for the subsequent period till the date of actual payment.

The first contention urged by Shri Rajiv Kataria is that the impugned judgment should be set aside solely on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to decide the application filed by the appellantsGurbax Singh etc. under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of permission to adduce additional evidence. Learned counsel submitted that another learned Single Judge (N.C. Jain, J.) vide his order dated 5.1.1989 passed in R.F.A. No. 804 of 1985 Bachan Kaur v. State of Punjab allowed similar application filed by other claimants and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the Reference Court and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have granted permission to the appellants to adduce additional evidence. Shri Kataria then argued that the belting system adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court is totally uncalled for because the entire acquired land formed part of one chunk and no distinction could be made between different parts of it on the ground of their vicinity to the State highways or other roads for the purpose of payment of compensation. The third contention of Shri Kataria is that the Land Acquisition Collector, the learned District Judge and the learned Single Judge have erroneously rejected the plea of the appellants for award of compensation by taking into consideration the sale transactions effected and the auctions held after possession of the land was taken over. He laid emphasis on the fact that the possession of the disputed land had in fact been taken over on 24.1.1977 and the second acquisition proceedings initiated after the decision of the High Court in Inder Singh''s case cannot alter the factum of taking of physical possession in January, 1977. His last contention is that the learned Reference Court and the learned Single Judge have erred in not properly evaluating the superstructures existing on the land of the appellants. The learned Advocate General controverted the arguments of Shri Kataria and submitted that the auctions allegedly held prior to the taking over possession on 31.3.1982 cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the property. He argued that even after the passing of order of remand by N.C. Jain, J. in R.F.A. No. 804 of 1985, the Reference Court has awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ per acre and a sum of Rs. 55,000/ for existing structures and in this manner the award passed earlier has been reiterated and, therefore, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with. The learned Advocate General also argued that the appellants cannot be allowed to challenge the belting system adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court because no such plea was raised before the learned Single Judge.

We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions and have minutely perused the record. At the outset, we deem it proper to mention that C.M. No. 3501 of 1987 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in R.F.A. No. 1091 of 1985 Gurbax Singh etc. v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) R.R.R. 500 for grant of permission to the appellant to lead evidence was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 8.12.1988. That order reads as under :

"The prayer made in this application appears to be too much belated. Otherwise also it is quite controversial between the parties as to whether any grain market had, as a matter of fact, been established or developed by the time the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 2nd January 1979. Dismissed."

Therefore, it must be held that the grievance of Shri Kataria that the learned Single Judge did not decide the application filed on behalf of the appellants to lead additional evidence is based on a factually incorrect premise. To us, it is clear that the learned counsel made this submission without going through the records of the appeal. In our opinion, the order dated 8.12.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellants does not suffer from any error of law requiring interference by the Appeal Bench.

The argument of the learned counsel that the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge have erred in determining the compensation deserves to be examined in the light of the findings of fact recorded by the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge. A careful reading of the award passed by the learned District Judge shows that after taking note of the rival pleadings, the learned District Judge framed the following 3 issues :

Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is inadequate and if so, to what extent ? OPP

Whether any of the reference is not competent because of the preliminary objection raised in the written statement ? OPR

Relief.

On issue No. 1, the learned District Judge analysed the evidence led by the parties, examined various sale instances and the awards and then held that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ per acre should be given in respect of the land falling in block ''A'' and for the remaining land, the compensation be paid at the flat rate of Rs. 60,000/ per acre. The relevant extracts of the findings recorded by the Reference Court under issue No. 1 are :

"It is common ground between the parties that the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Morinda at the time of its acquisition and so was also stated by Shri Bela Singh (PW 1), tax clerk, Municipal Committee, Morinda. Shri Harjit Singh Patwari Revenue (PW 2) prepared the plan Ex. P1 on the basis of the aksshajra. He admitted in his crossexamination that the acquired land was agricultural and that there were only about four residential houses on the acquired land before it were acquired. In the plan Ex. P1 he had shown ''Abadi'' in Killa No. 952/1 and he admitted in his crossexamination that ''Abadi'' consisted of only five or six houses...........

There is not even an iota of evidence on record to show that any construction activity of any type was going on in or around the acquired land at the time of the publication of the relevant notification. There is also no evidence to show that the ''abadi'' of Morinda town was extending across the Morinda Chamkaur Sahib road, towards the acquired land. In these circumstances, it will not be justified to treat the acquired land at par with the land covered by the Prem Colony across the MorindaChamkaur Sahib road. A few small shops and residential houses adjoined the acquired land and they were situated on the ChandigarhLudhiana road. If at all the acquired land had great urban potential, that portion of the acquired land which abutted on the Chandigarh Ludhiana road would not have remained agricultural land for all intents and purposes till the land was acquired. The plan Ex. P1 further makes it clear that the main ''abadi'' of Morinda town was across the ChandigarhLudhiana road, on the other side of the acquired land. It also appears from the evidence of Shri Harjit Singh Patwari (PW 2) that the acquired land was primarily agricultural land at the time of its acquisition though it had some urban potential and for that reason the Land Acquisition Collector did not award compensation treating the acquired land to be only agricultural land but instead divided the acquired land into three blocks depending upon the degree of urban potential and award the compensation accordingly at different rates........

This Court, in its judgment dated 19.9.1984, in Gurmit Singh and others v. The Extra Assistant Colonization Officer etc. took into consideration the instances of sale covered by mutations No. 1963, 1980, 2048, 2079, 2082, 2347, 2365, 3068 and 3220, mentioned at serial Nos. 5 to 13 above, on which the claimants have placed reliance in these references also. The court also took into account mutations No. 1816, 1854, 1910, 2001, 1962, 2400, 2417, 2460, 2510 and 2594, mentioned at serial Nos. 15 to 24 above on which the respondentState has placed reliance in the case in hand. After taking into consideration these 19 instances of sale, this Court ordered the awarding of compensation for the land included in block ''A'' of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ per acre. The same rate of compensation for the land falling in block ''A'' was allowed in subsequent judgments also. The sale instance covered by mutation No. 837, copy Ex.P.2, related to the sale of 10 Biswas of ''Chahi'' land on 5.2.1971 for Rs. 21,560/ suggesting the market price per acre at more than rupees two lacs. This piece of land comprised killa Nos. 827 and 829 and was situated on the crossing of ChandigarhLudhiana and Morinda Chamkaur Sahib roads towards the Prem Colony. It has to be borne in mind that the acquired land measuring 147 Bighas 3 Biswas whereas this instance of sale covered only 10 Biswas of land. It is also significant to note that the relevant notification was published on 2.1.1979 whereas this sale took place in February, 1971. The other instance of sale is covered by mutation No. 997, copy of Ex.P.3 which relates to the sale of 1 Bigha of Chahi land on 8.2.1972 for Rs. 16,000/ only. This piece of land comprised killa Nos. 845 and 846 and was situated on the ChandigarhLudhiana road and was left out from acquisition. In spite of the fact that this piece of land was situated on the main ChandigarhLudhiana road and was not very far off from the interjunction of ChandigarhLudhiana and MorindaChamkaur Sahib road, the prevailing market price of land came to about Rs. 76,800/ although this sale had taken place more than one year after the sale covered by mutation No. 837. A comparative study of these two instances of sale clearly indicates that larger the area sold, lesser the price in spite of the fact that both the pieces of land enjoyed almost the same advantage of location. The learned counsel for the claimants had no explanation to offer for the market price coming down from more than Rs. 2,00,000/ per acre to less than Rs. 7,000/ per acre after a lapse of more than one year.

The third instance of sale is covered by mutation No. 1983, copy Ex.P.4, which relates to the sale of only 12 Biswas of Chahi land for Rs. 4,000/ on 29.12.1976 thereby suggesting the market price of such land at Rs. 1,92,000/ per acre. This small plot comprised killa Nos. 835 and 842 and was situated on the ChandigarhLudhiana road but was nearer to the point where the ChandigarhLudhiana and MorindaChamkaur Sahib roads crossed each other, as compared to the land covered by mutation No. 997, copy Ex. P3. It will also be also be useful to mention here that 10 months after the sale, covered by mutation No. 837, the market price could not be as high as suggested by the instance of sale mentioned at serial No. 1, may be because the sold area of land was 10 Biswas whereas the area of land involved in the sale covered by mutation No. 1983 was only 2 Biswas. The fourth instance of sale in this context is covered by mutation No. 1706, copy of Ex. P.5 which relates to the sale of a small piece of 2 Biswas of Chahi land for Rs. 3200/ on 30.12.1976/ but this instance of sale suggested the market price of such land at Rs. 1,56,600/ per acre. This small piece of land was situated on the Morinda Chamkaur Sahib road and was comparatively away from the ChandigarhLudhiana road. The comparative study of the two sales, covered by mutation No. 1983 and 1706, further go to suggest that the land adjoining the ChandigarhLudhiana road commanded better market price than the land which adjoined the Morinda Chamkaur Sahib road which was of lesser importance than the other National Highway. These two instances of sale involved land which was acquired. The sales, covered by mutations No. 1963 and 1980, copies Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 respectively, took place in May and July, 1978 and they suggest the market price of land at Rs. 96,000/ although the sold land was situated on one side on the ChandigarhLudhiana road and on the other side on the Chandigarh Sirhind road. The land covered by these two instances of sale was the same. The instance of sale, covered by mutations No. 2048, 2079 and 2082, copies Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 respectively, related to the sales of small pieces of Chahi land varying from 10 Biswas to 17 Biswas from August 1978 to December 1979 suggesting the market price of such land from Rs. 1,05,600/ to Rs. 1,84,400/ although these three pieces of land were situated in a development locality known as Prem Colony which was surrounded by the ChandigarhLudhiana and MorindaSirhind roads, on the other side of the acquired land was near to the abadi of Morinda town.

The instances of sale covered by mutations No. 2347, 2365, 3068 and 3220 copies Ex.P.11 to P.14, relate to sales which had taken place much after the publication of the relevant notification and as such they have to be excluded from consideration. Even otherwise the instance of sale covered by mutation No. 2347, copy Ex.P.11, relates to the sale of 6 Biswas of ''Chahi'' land on 21.6.1979 for Rs. 9,000/ in spite of the fact that this small piece of land was situated on the ChandigarhLudhiana road and opposite to the ''abadi'' and the shop, shown in the plan Ex.P.1 and comprised in killa Nos. 952/1969 and 970 which too abutted on the ChandigarhLudhiana road. Similarly one Bigha of Chahi land was sold on 16.8.1979 for Rs. 60,000/ mutation No. 2365 (Ex.P.12) suggesting the market price of such land at Rs. 2,88,800/ per acre after more than seven months of the publication of the relevant notification although this piece of land was situated on the ChandigarhSirhind road and very close to the point where ChandigarhSirhind and ChandigarhLudhiana roads crossed each other. The remaining two instances of sale, given at serial Nos. 12 and 13 and covered by mutations No. 3068 and 3220, took place in April and August, 1982 and hence they have to be excluded together from consideration. The only instance of sale, which remains to be discussed, is covered by the saledeed Ex.P.26 through which 10 Bighas and 5 Biswas of land was sold by Durga Singh and Thuman Singh claimants in Land Reference No. 83 of 15.6.1983 to Bachan Singh son of Arjan Singh for Rs. 9,000/ on 3.1.1975 suggesting the market price of the land at Rs. 84,000/ per acre. This piece of land was situated on the MorindaChamkaur Sahib road. It may be recalled that the acquired land was a compact block measuring 147 Bighas 3 Biswas.

Now I take up the instance of sale on which the respondentState has placed reliance. The instance of sale covered by mutation No. 2001, copy Ex.R.12, relates to the sale of 3 Bighas 2 Biswas of Chahi land for Rs. 12,600/ on 21.6.1978 suggesting the market price of such land at less than Rs. 29,000/ per acre although this piece of land was situated near the locality known as Prem Colony, as shown in plan Ex.P.1, and was quite near the ChandigarhLudhiana road. Similarly, the instance of sale, covered by mutation No. 2400, copy Ex.R.13, related to the sale of 1 Bigha 5 Biswas of ''Chahi'' land for Rs. 10,000/ on 22.5.1979 suggesting the market price at less than Rs. 30,000/ per acre although an ice factory was shown to be existing on this piece of land in the plan Ex.P.1. This sale had taken place after about three months of the publication of the relevant notification. A similarly situated land measuring 1 Bigha 11 Biswas was sold on 15.11.1979 for Rs. 12,000/ suggesting the market price of such land at less than Rs. 38,000/ per acre. The sale instance covered by mutation No. 2460, coy Ex.R.15 relates to the sale of 1 Bigha of Chahi land on 24.11.1978 for Rs. 6300/ suggesting the market price of such land at less than Rs. 31,000/ per acre although this piece of land was situated quite near to the point where the Chandigarh Sirhind and ChandigarhLudhiana roads cross each other. There is no justification for not relying on the abovementioned instances of sale for reaching the right conclusion about the prevailing market price of the acquired land at the time of the publication of the notification on 2.1.1979...........

As already observed, this Court has earlier ordered the awarding of compensation for the land falling in block ''A'' of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ per acre. After taking into consideration the instances of sale on which the parties have relied in these cases also, I am of the considered view that compensation for the acquired land falling in block ''A'' carved out by the Land Acquisition Collector, and for the land comprising killa Nos. 876 to 879 should be paid at the rate of Rs. 75,000/ per acre and for the rest of the acquired land compensation should be paid at a flat rate of Rs. 60,000/ per acre.....

Sarvshri Durga Singh and Thuman Singh claimants in Land Reference No. 83 of 15.6.1983 claimed an extra compensation of Rs. 15,000/ for the tubewell. They had also claimed a separate compensation of Rs. 5,000/ for shifting of electric connection, Rs. 10,000/ for loss of common tubewell and Rs. 36,250/ for underground pipes and another amount of Rs. 1,000/ for the barbed wire. The claimants have, however, led evidence in support of their claim regarding the tubewell only. Estimate was also got prepared for a cattle shed for which no enhanced compensation was claimed in the claim application and as such no enhanced compensation can be allowed for the cattle shed or on any other count except the tubewell. Shri Krishan Dutt (P.W.3) prepared the plan Ex.P.20 for the cattle shed as well as the tubewell and the estimate Ex.P.24 for Rs. 47,000/. The estimate, in addition to the tubewell, included an amount of Rs. 32,000/ for ''Pucca'' water channel for which the claimants had claimed no compensation at least in the application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The estimate Ex.P.24, therefore, gets reduced to Rs. 14,660/. A compensation of Rs. 4,236/ was allowed for the tubewell by the Land Acquisition Collector and an additional compensation of 25% was also allowed on the basis of the subsequent notification on the basis of which award of No. 1 of 31.3.1982 was made. No evidence has been produced in rebuttal. In the estimate Ex.P.24 the criterion for the preparation of the estimate has not been mentioned and it appears to be more of a guess work. In the circumstances I consider that a compensation of Rs. 9,000/ will be adequate and accordingly I hold that the compensation awarded to these claimants on this count was inadequate to the extent indicated above.

Gurbax Singh and Balbir Singh claimants in Land Reference No. 84 of 15.6.1983 claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,000/ for the tubewell, Rs. 36,250/ for underground pipes of a total length of 2900 feet, Rs.10,000/ for the loss of common tubewell, Rs. 2,000/ on account of shifting of electric connection, Rs. 9,000/ for motor shed containing 7.5 horse power motor along with its fittings, Rs. 4,000/ for fodder cutting machine having 3.5 horse power electric motor, Rs. 97,260/ for the cattle shed in khasra Nos. 850 and 851 which also included the courtyard and the garden which further had mango trees and grape wines, Rs. 63,000/ for hotel, tea shop, motor workshop and a wine shop, Rs. 10,000/ for one 10 years old mango tree, one 5 years old grape wine and four 30 years old Shahtoot trees, Rs. 2,000/ for a ''Pucca'' well, Rs. 1,000/ for the barbed wire and another amount of Rs. 15,000/ for shifting of dairy farm and another amount of Rs. 15,000/ on account of severance. It was also their claim that they had suffered a loss of Rs. 2,500/ on account of rental income for displaying the advertisement board of Punjab Poultry Corporation in Khasra No. 850. No evidence has been produced by the claimants regarding the fruit trees, any loss suffered on account of shifting of electric connection, loss suffered because of having been deprived of the joint tubewell, compensation for a ''Pucca'' well, for the barbed wire, compensation on account of severance of the land and also for the compensation claimed for shifting of dairy business. There is also no evidence regarding the loss of income claimed on account of displaying the advertisement board for the Punjab Poultry Corporation.

First of all I take up the case of the claimants regarding the adequacy of compensation on account of acquisition of the tubewell and pipeline. It appears from the award that these two claimants along with Thala Singh, Teja Singh and the Central Government, were awarded a total compensation of Rs. 15,769/ which was further enhanced by 25% because of the earlier notification for acquisition having been quashed. The claimants examined Shri Krishan Dutt (P.W.3), a retired overseer, who prepared the plan Ex.P.21 and estimate of cost Ex.P.25 amounting to Rs. 92,060/. On the other hand, the respondent State has brought on record the estimate Ex. R.18 amounting to Rs. 12,615/. The learned Government Pleader conceded that there was technical mistake in calculations in the estimate Ex.R.18 inasmuch as the price of 2900 feet of the pipe at the rate of Rs. 4/ per feet came to Rs. 11,600/ whereas in the estimate it had been taken at Rs. 9,600/. In other words the estimate should have been for Rs. 14,615/. In addition a premium of 25% has to be allowed on this estimate because of the notification for earlier acquisition having been quashed. The total will come to about Rs. 18,270/. Shri Krishan Dutt adopted the rate of the pipe at Rs. 13/ per foot and there is no evidence from where he had adopted this rate for calculating the price of the underground pipe. The value of the underground pipeline was taken at Rs. 37,700/. Similarly, Sh. Krishan Dutt allowed an exorbitant amount of Rs. 29,000/ on account of labour charges. There can be no scope for doubt that Shri Krishan Dutt has taken the estimate to the other extreme. Keeping the two extremes of the estimate in view, I consider that a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/ on account of the tubewell and the entire pipeline will be adequate and order the awarding of the same to these claimants to the extent of their share.

Gurbax Singh claimant was ordered to be paid a compensation of Rs. 24,556/ for the house which stood on the land comprising khasra No. 850 Min while Balbir Singh was awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,380/ for the house which stood on the land comprising khasra No. 850 min. The claimants examined Shri Krishan Dutt (P.W. 3) who prepared the estimate Ex.P.25. A total estimate of Rs. 56,500/ was prepared for the structures belonging to Shri Gurbax Singh claimant consisting of a wine shop, a hotel and cattle shed. In the case of Balbir Singh a total estimate of Rs. 79,368/ for the tea shop, a hotel and a cattle shed and also a ''Verandah'' was prepared. The witness calculated the total covered area in the case of most of the structures and then calculated the estimate at the rate of Rs. 50/ per square feet without mentioning the source from which he adopted this rate. He did not mention the details of the material nor the quantity or the quality of the material used in the structures in dispute. On the other hand the respondentState examined Shri Joginder Paul (R.W.1), a Building Inspector, who prepared the plans of the constructions in dispute Ex.R.1 to R.3 and the estimate of cost of construction Ex.R4 to Ex.R6. In the case of Gurbax Singh, Joginder Pal prepared an estimate of Rs. 16,058/ for the constructions detailed in the plan Ex.R.1 and another of Rs. 3,587/ for the structures detailed in the plan Ex.R.3 the total of which comes to Rs. 19,645/ and with a premium of 25% on account of the earlier notification having been quashed, the Land Acquisition Collector allowed a compensation of Rs. 24,556/. A reference to the plan Ex.R.1 will show that the structure in dispute consisted of four rooms and a full covered ''verandah'' in front. One of the rooms was of the dimension of 36''6" x 12'' and two rooms were of the dimension of 18''3" x 12'' each and the fourth was of the dimension of 13''x12''. The covered ''verandah'' was having G.I. sheets on the roofs and was 56''6" in length and 12'' in breadth. There was another small room of the size 7'' x 7'' in front of which also the covered ''verandah'' existed. It also appears from the estimate Ex.R.1 that the witness arbitrarily adopted three different rates after dividing the constructions in dispute in three different categories without mentioning the criterion for the same. The total covered area even according to Shri Joginder Paul would come to 1790 square feet and even if compensation is to be calculated at the flat rate of Rs. 12/ per square feet, it will come to Rs. 21,480/ and a premium of 25% is to be added to the same which will come to a total of Rs. 26,850/. As already observed, this witness also did not mention the quantity or the quality of the material used nor the reason for adopting the flat rate for calculation of the estimate of cost. Similarly, in the case of the other constructions belonging to Gurbax Singh as detailed in the plan Ex.R.1 for which the estimate Ex.R.6 was prepared by Shri Joginder Paul, the total estimate of cost at the rate of Rs. 12/ per square feet for 352 square feet of covered area would come to Rs. 5,280/. These constructions admittedly stood just on the National Highway. Even according to the abovementioned criterion the total estimate of cost will come to Rs. 32,130/ which appears to be on the lower side. A total compensation of Rs. 35,000/ to Gurbax Singh claimant should be adequate and fair and I assess the same at Rs. 35,000/."

In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants for award of compensation by taking into consideration the auction of booth held on July 4, 1978 and rejected the same by making the following observations :

"It deserves to be highlighted at this stage that but for the above noted award Ex.P.7 and copies of saledeeds Ex.P.15 to P.17 and Ex.P.26, none of the parties has led any other legal evidence in support of their respective claims. They only chose to rely upon certain mutation orders which as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu, 1986 R.R.R. 228 : 1986 P.L.R. 109 do not constitute any evidence of the terms and conditions of sale transaction and, therefore, are not admissible for purposes of evaluating the acquired land. Similarly, the above noted sale instances Ex.P.15 to P.17 and P.26 can also not be relied upon for evaluating the suit land. These cannot possibly be taken as comparable sales. Concededly, these pertain to very small plots of few marlas each and the areas covered by these are along the Chandigarh Ludhiana road. Undisputedly, these plots have been utilised for constructing commercial properties. It is thus apparent that the Lower Court could do no better than to rely upon its earlier award Ex.P7, a reference to which has already been made. Though in the light of this conclusion of mine nothing more need be said for the disposal of these appeals yet in order to be fair to Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the claimantappellants, it may be mentioned here that since his clients in their respective reference applications under Section 18 of the Act have made reference to certain auction of plots meant for the construction of booths held on July 4, 1978 at an exorbitant rate of more than Rs. 23,00,000/ per acre. They, according to him, are entitled to much higher rate of compensation than what has been allowed to them. In a nut shell, the contention is that since subsequent to the earlier notification dated 17.1.1977, the authorities concerned had auctioned some plots of this grain market at fabulous price, these appellants deserve to be compensated in the light of that. This stand of the learned counsel is wholly untenable. Firstly, no evidence whatsoever has been led in support of the above noted factual position. Secondly, there is no evidence to show as a matter of fact that the authorities had developed the area in question and the plots as alleged had been carved out."

SALE INSTANCE RELIED UPON BY THE CLAIMANTS

Village Morinda

Sr. No.

Mutation No.

Date of Sale

Area sold

Kind of land

Sale price

Price per acre

1.

837 (Ex.P.2)

5/2/1971

OB10B

"Chahi"

Rs. 21,560/

Rs. 2,06,400/

2.

997 (Ex.P.3)

8/2/1972

IBOB

"Chahi"

Rs. 16,000/

Rs. 7,68,00/

3.

1983 (Ex.P4)

29/12/1976

OB2B

Rs. 4,000/

Rs. 1,92,00/

(Saledeed Ex.P.27)

4.

1706 (Ex.P.5)

30/12/1976

0B2B

Rs. 3,200/

Rs. 1,56,00/

5.

1963 (Ex.P.6)

31/5/1978

1B1B

Rs. 21,000/

Rs. 96,000/

6.

1980 (Ex.P.7)

4/7/1978

0B19B

Rs. 19,000/

Rs. 96,000/

7.

2048 (Ex.P.8)

31/8/1978

0B15B

Rs. 21,000/

Rs. 1,24,000/

8.

2079 (Ex.P.9)

3/11/1978

0B17B

Rs. 20,400/

1,19,960/

9.

2082 (Ex.P.10)

20/12/1978

0B10B

Rs. 11,000/

1,05,600/

10.

2347 (Ex.P.11)

21/6/1979

0BOB

Rs. 9,000/

Rs. 1,44,00/

11.

2365 (Ex.P.12)

16/8/1979

1BOB

Rs. 60,000/

Rs. 2,88,800/

12.

3068 (Ex.P.13)

12/4/1982

0B10B

Rs. 34,000/

Rs. 3,26400/

13.

3220 (EWx.P.14)

27/8/1982

0B3B

Rs. 40,000/

Rs. 3,84,000/

14.

Saledeed (Ex.P.26)

3/1/1975

10 Biswas

Rs. 9,000/

Rs. 84,000/

SALE INSTANCES RELIED UPON BY THE RESPONDENT

Village Morinda

15.

1816 (Ex.R.8)

20/6/1977

2BOB

"

Rs. 6,000/

Rs. 14,600/

16.

1854 (Ex.R.9)

19/8/1977

6B9B

Rs. 36,281.25

Rs. 27,000/

17.

1910 (Ex.R.10)

7/6/1977

0B15B

Rs. 7,000/

Rs. 44,800/

18.

1962 (Ex.R.11)

23/3/1978

3B0B

Rs. 10,000/

Rs. 16,000/

19.

2001 (Ex.R.12)

21/6/1978

3B2B

Rs. 18,600/

Rs. 28,800/

20.

2400 (Ex.R.13)

22/5/1979

1B5B

Rs. 10,000/

Rs. 38,400/

21.

2417 (Ex.R.14)

15/11/1979

1B11B

Rs. 12,000/

Rs. 37,160/

22.

2460 (Ex.R.15)

24/11/1978

1B0B

Rs. 6,300/

Rs. 30,240/

23.

2510 (Ex.R.16)

26/12/1979

9B6B

Rs. 27,900/

Rs. 14,400/

24.

2594 (Ex.R.17)

29/5/1980

7B14B

Rs. 4,040/

Rs. 24,960/

Learned Single Judge also repelled the argument that the area in question has been developed into a market.

In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Reference Court and the learned Single Judge, we do not find any merit in the submission of Shri Kataria that the compensation awarded to the appellants is on the lower side.

The argument of the learned counsel against the adoption of block system or belting system merits rejection on the ground that no such plea was raised before the Reference Court or the leaned Single Judge. While hearing appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent, we cannot allow the appellants to raise new plea, the determination of which depends on investigation into the question of fact. Even otherwise, this argument deserves to be rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Mangtu Ram etc., 1998(1) Revenue Law Reporter 222 : 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 342 (SC). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the lands abutting the main road are entitled to be assessed at higher rate than lands which are in the interior. A similar view has been expressed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 670 of 1985 Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 278, decided on 30.5.1997.

We may also mention that the grievance made by similarly situated persons in respect of the market value of superstructures has been examined and rejected in L.P.A. No. 1474 of 1989 : 1997(4) RCR (Civil) (P&H) (DB) 605, Surjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab, decided by this Court on 2.2.1988. A careful reading of that judgment shows that the appellant had relied on the testimony of Som Nath Saini (P.W.1) for claiming enhanced compensation in respect of superstructure. The evidence of same witness has been relied upon by the appellants in this case for claiming higher compensation for superstructures. However, in view of the finding recorded in the judgment dated 2.2.1988, we do not find any ground to entertain the claim of the appellants for award of higher compensation. While deciding L.P.A. No. 1474 of 1989, the Court had made reference to the finding recorded by the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge and held as under :

"We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge has been extra indulgent in granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/ per square feet in respect of the superstructure. The learned Single Judge should have completely discarded the statement of Shri Som Nath Saini (P.W.1) on whose evidence the claimant had placed reliance for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 77/ per square feet. A perusal of the statement of Shri Som Nath Saini shows that he is said to have visited the spot and inspected the structure in dispute on 1.1.1977 but prepared the estimate on 9.4.1982 i.e. after a gap of 5 years 3 months and 8 days. In crossexamination, Shri Som Nath Saini admitted that he had appeared as a witness for claimants in about 150 cases. He also admitted the factum of suspension on the charge of corruption, of being censured and compulsorily retired. Shri Som Nath Saini also stated that he had kept a mental note of the inspection of the spot. These factors should have been more (than) sufficient to discard the statement of Shri Som Nath Saini. However, the learned Single Judge took his statement into consideration along with the statement of Joginder Paul, Building Inspector, who was summoned by the department and fixed the higher rate for the superstructure without any tangible basis. If Shri Som Nath Saini''s statement is ignored, then there remains no evidence which could justify award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/ per square feet to the appellant."

For the reasons recorded above, we hold that these appeals are without merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Appeals dismissed.