AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
419 paragraphs · 4,204 wordsPritam Pal, J.—This judgment of mine would dispose of a bunch of 62 Regular First Appeals, bearing Nos. 1802 of 1996, 1459, 1799, 1466, 1166 to 1171, 1602 to 1605, 1607, 1608, 1641 to 1644, 1698, 1742, 1743, 1798, 1800 to 1803, 2084, 2130 2305, 2397, 2407, 1167, 1168 of 1995, 582 of 1996 and 2014 of 2003 filed by the claimants/landowners for enhancement of compensation and R.F.A. Nos. 1669 to 1675; 2180 to 2199 of 1995 and 4071 of 2002, filed by Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation, against the award dated 27.1.1995, passed by the Reference Court. Since all these appeals arise out of one and the same judgment, pertaining to the same notification and common questions of law and facts are involved therein, so they are being taken up together for decision.
In nutshell, facts culminating to the commencement of these sixty two appeals may be recapitulated thus :
In pursuance to the Punjab Government notification dated 27.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the total land measuring 222.89 acres situated in five villages, namely, Basti Danish Mandan, Kutlupur, Basti Bawa Khel, Wariana and Basti Pir Dad, (District Jalandhar) was acquired for the purpose of settingup a Leather Goods Complex at Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar at public expenses for public purposes. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Punjab Government gazette on 9/10th August, 1985. Ultimately, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, "the Collector") had passed five different awards on the same date i.e. 14.8.1987 in respect of compensation of the acquired land of the landowners/appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the landowners"). Thereafter, a Supplementary Award No. 4A was also passed by the Collector regarding the compensation in respect of structure, handpump etc. situated in village Basti Pir Dad in respect of Kulbir Singh, one of the landowners. As per the awards passed by the Collector, compensation for Chahi and Ghair Mumkin land abutting pucca road was assessed at Rs. 60,000/ per acre whereas, the compensation of land which was 40 karams away from the pucca road, was assessed at Rs. 48,033/ per acre. Likewise, the Collector awarded a compensation of barani land abutting the pucca road @ Rs. 30,000/ per acre, whereas, for barani land which was more than 40 karams away from the pucca road, it was assessed at the rate of Rs.23,800/. It is also to add here that the above rates of the land were applied by the Collector to the entire acquired land situated in all the above mentioned five villages of District Jalandhar. Besides that, 10% severance charges of the compensation amount was also awarded to four appellants, namely, Gurbhajan Singh, Gursharan Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh.
All the appellants feeling aggrieved with the rate of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed their respective Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. Ultimately, the matter went before the Reference Court, where, learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide his judgment dated 27.1.1995, held the method of awarding compensation by the Collector in respect of the acquired land as improper and unjustifiable and while relying upon Nand Ram and others v. State of Haryana 1989 All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 1 (SC); Ratti Ram and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1987 All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 199, Inder Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987 All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 321 and Zora Singh v. Union of India and another All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 541, came to the conclusion that the compensation/market value of the land acquired by the same notification forming one tract was to be assessed at the same rate. Further, it was also observed by the learned Reference Court that when lands were similarly situated, acquired under the same notification and for the same public purpose, then in that eventuality, the State is required to pay similar compensation to the landowners under Section 23 of the Act. Ultimately, the Reference Court vide its judgment dated 27.1.1995, assessed the marketvalue of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 1,15,000/ per acre. At the same time, no severance charges, for which 10% compensation was granted by the Collector, were awarded by the Reference Court.
Now, the land owners, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid rate of compensation, awarded by the Reference Court have come up in 35 Regular First Appeals for enhancement of compensation atleast at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/ per acre. On the other hand, Punjab Small Industries & Exports Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") has also filed appeals for making reduction in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
According to the landowners, the acquired land is strategically located as it adjoins the existing Sports Complex and is within the Municipal limits. The land was situated between two metalled roads and next to a large number of industries, which had already come up. Further a common ground taken in the grounds of appeal is that the land acquired had a potential value for being developed as commercial, residential and industrial area. It is also pleaded in the grounds of appeal that the compensation awarded by the Collector, on account of severance charges, has also been denied illegally by the learned Reference Court and that documentary evidence led by the appellants to determine the market value has also not been appreciated in right perspective.
On the other hand, the Corporation have taken the plea that the amount of compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.1,15,000/ by the Reference Court is on the higher side and that the method applied for awarding the compensation by fixing a flat rate of acquired land for determining the marketvalue by the Reference Court is not justified and proper. According to the Corporation, the acquired land is situated outside the municipal area of Jalandhar town and not only that, the same is situated quite near the drain (nalah), which carries sewerage water of Jalandhar town. On that count, the market value of the acquired land should not have been fixed at Rs. 1,15,000/ per acre. Further, ground of appeal taken by the Corporation is that the learned Reference Court had erred in enhancing the amount of compensation and ignoring the important aspect that the land had been acquired for the development of Leather Goods Complex for industrial growth and to improve the economy in the State of Punjab. It is also to add here that the State of Punjab has not independently filed any appeal against the impugned judgment. In fact, the Corporation is the beneficiary of the land acquired by the State of Punjab.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record carefully.
The first and foremost point of arguments, raised on behalf of the land owners is that here in the instant case, before the Reference Court the following sale transactions were proved and relied upon :
Sr.No.
Exhibit Date of sale
Area
Nature of land
Village
Consideration
Rate per Acre
1)
P1/A
21.1.85
7 Knals 93/4 Mls.
Basti Pirdad
Rs.12000/
Rs. 13665/
2)
P33
15.6.83
4 Kanals Chahi
Wariana
Rs. 40,000/
Rs. 80,000/
3)
P34
16.6.83
4 Knalsdo
do
Rs. 40,000/
Rs. 80,000/
4)
P35
17.6.83
4 Kanals do
do
Rs. 40,000/
Rs. 80,000/
5)
P36
20.6.83
40 Kanals do
do
Rs. 40,000/
Rs. 80,000/
6)
P37
12.9.84
010
Bastri Bawakhel.
Rs. 25,500/
Rs. 40,08000/
7)
P38
2.3.84
Ok4 Mls
do
Rs. 6000/
Rs. 9,60,000/
8)
P39
13.9.84
Ok6 Mls
do
Rs. 25,000/
Rs. 6,66,720/
9)
P40
23.1.85
Ok9 Mls
do
Rs. 22,500/
Rs. 4,00,000/
10)
P41
23.1.85
Ok9 Mls
do
Rs. 30,000/
Rs. 5,33,333/
11)
P42
3.8.84
Ok9 Mls
do
Rs. 80,000/
Rs. 5,33,333/
12)
P43
7.8.80
OK7M144
do
Rs. 8,000/
Rs. 1,82,880/
13)
P44
13.1.82
OK7M144
do
Rs. 18469/
Rs. 4,22,740/
14)
P45
20.7.81
OK.do 8M180 sq.ft
do
Rs. 19,400/
Rs. 3,46.720/
15)
P46
13.4.83
14K9 Mls
Basti Pirhad
Rs. 2,98,031.25
Rs. 1,65000/
16)
P47
13.4.83
30K4 Mls
do
Rs. 6,22,875/
Rs. 1,65000
17)
P48
13.4.83
9K16 Mls
do
Rs. 2,02,125/
Rs.1,65000/
18)
P49
13.8.84
OK4M108 Sq.Ft.
do
Rs.13,000/
Rs. 4,73,120/
19)
P50
14.8.83
OK51/4 Mls
do
Rs. 17575/
Rs. 5,35,620/
20)
P51
7.5.84
2K16 Mls
Wariana
Rs. 39,000/
Rs. 1,11,428/
21)
P52
30.5.84
2K15 Mls
do
Rs. 38,500/
Rs. 1,12,000/
22)
P53
3.7.84
2K13 Mls
do
Rs. 37,100/
Rs. 1,11,698/
23)
P54
21.6.83
4K1 Mls
do
Rs. 40,000/
Rs. 79,012/
After making reference to the above saleinstances, learned counsel for the landowners contended that though there were sale instances of Rs. 4,00,000/ per acre in the year 1983, of the lands situated in the five villages where the land was acquired for setting up the "Leather Goods Complex", yet the Reference Court ignored those saletransactions on the ground that they were of very small portions of the lands mainly sold for residential purposes, but at the same time, learned Reference Court taking into consideration a considerable area shown to have been sold in the year 1983 in Basti Pir Dad vide sale transactions Ex. P46, Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 came to the conclusion that rate of the similarly situated land, as that of the acquired land, was Rs. 1,65,000/ per acre. Learned counsel for the landowners then assailed the observations of the learned Reference Court, whereby, it reduced the market value of the acquired land from Rs.1,65,000/ to Rs. 1,15,000/ per acre simply on the ground that the same was situated near a drain (Nalah) flowing with dirty water, which is not justified in any manner. The next noticeable point of argument, raised by Shri M.L.Sarin, learned Senior counsel is that the Reference Court has also not granted any amount on account of severance charges of the acquired land of land owners, namely, Gurbhajan Singh, Gursharan Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh. On this count, he submitted that there is a material on the file which goes a longway to show that the tubewell, which was the source of irrigation in their acquired land, has gone with the same and as such, the remaining leftout land has become uneconomical for want of source of irrigation, and then to make the same irrigatable, a new tubewell would have to be installed. In this regard, he submitted for awarding severance charges at the rate of 50% of the market value of the acquired land. He also made reference to the material on the file, which indicates that even the Land Acquisition Collector had also awarded severance charges at the rate of 10% of the market value of the acquired land.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation did their best to repel the aforesaid points of arguments and submitted that the Reference Court has wrongly granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,15,000/ which is on the higher side. They then also made reference to the following sale transactions, relied upon by them before the Reference Court :
Sr. No.
Exhibit
Date of Sale
Area
Name of Village
Consideration
Rate per Acre
1)
R1
16.6.83
4K0Mls
Wariana
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
2)
R2
20.6.83
4K0Mls
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
3)
R3
17.6.83
4K)Mls
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
4)
R4
16.6.83
4K0M
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
5)
R5
16.6.83
4K0 Ml
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
6)
R6
16.6.83
4K0Ml
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
7)
R7
20.6.83
4K0 Ml
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/
8)
R8
21.6.83
4K1 Mls
do
Rs.40,000/
Rs.80,000/ Approximat ely.
9)
R9
24.5.83
0K15Mls
do
Rs18,000/
Rs.82285/
10)
R10
24.5.83
00K19Ml
do
Rs.04,500/
Rs.37894/
11)
R11
3.7.84
2K18Mls
do
Rs.15,000/
Rs.41379/
12)
R12
18.7.84
01K03Mls
do
Rs.5,750/
Rs.40000/
13)
R13
06/08/84
7K02Mls
do
Rs.22,500/
Rs.25352/
14)
R14
26.9.84
14K0 Ml
do
Rs.48,000/
Rs.27428/
15)
R15
27.9.84
14K00M
do
Rs.47,000/
Rs.26857/
16)
R16
29.10.84
01K00Mls
do
Rs.05,000/
Rs.40,000/
17)
R17
29.10.84
5K14Mls.
do
Rs.26,000/
Rs.36491/
18)
R18
06/12/84
4K13Mls
do
Rs.15,000/
Rs.25806/
19)
R19
13.12.84
0K19Mls
do
Rs.10,000/
Rs.84210/
20)
R20
1.8.84
7K2Mls
do
Rs.22,500/
Rs.25352/
21)
R21
8.2.85
2K10Mls
do
Rs.8,501/
Rs.27203/
22)
R22
8.2.85
2K10Mls
do
Rs.8,501/
Rs.27203/
23)
R23
11.2.85
2K10Mls
do
do
Rs.27203/
24)
R24
11.2.85
2K10Mls.
do
Rs.8,601/
Rs.27203/
25)
R25
4.3.85
14K04Mls.
do
Rs.39,000/
Rs.16901
26)
R26
16.8.84
5K0Mls.
do
Rs.20,000/
Rs.40000/
27)
R27
21.1.85
7K93/4Mls.
Basti PirDad
Rs.12,000/
Rs.13665/
28)
R28
12.4.84
16K9Mls.
Kutlupur
Rs.32,000/
Rs.15562/
29)
R29
22.5.84
14K6Mls
do
Rs.27,000/
Rs.15104/
30)
R30
18.6.84
2K4 Mls
do
Rs.4,000/
Rs.14545/
31)
R31
18.7.84
1K13Mls.
do
Rs.3,000/
Rs.14545/
32)
R32
31.7.84
3 K00Mls.
do
Rs.9,000/
Rs.24000/
After making reference to the aforesaid sale instances, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that keeping in view the sale consideration shown in the aforesaid sale instances, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is not justified in any manner. At the same time, it was also argued that learned Reference Court should not have ignored the method of belting system adopted by the Collector to determine the market value of the acquired land at the relevant date. In this regard, he made reference to the location of the acquired land and submitted that the land which abuts the main road was rightly assessed by the Collector on the higher rate, whereas, the land situated 40 karams away from the main road was assessed at the lower rate. Learned Counsel for the Corporation then submitted that the Reference Court has thus, erred while fixing uniform rates of the acquired land. In support of their aforesaid points of arguments, learned Counsel for the Corporation also relied upon Union of India v. Mangat (dead) by L.Rs., 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 815; Pawan Kumar and another v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 598.
At the fag end of their arguments, it was also submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the land owners, namely, Gurbhajan Singh, Gursharan Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh are entitled to compensation at the rate of 50% of the market value on account of severance charges of their acquired lands. In this regard, while placing reliance on Adusumilli Gopalakrishna v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), 1980 Supp. Supreme Court Cases 204, it was contended that the Hon`ble Apex Court has granted only 5% of the market value on account of Severance charges/damages.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions put forth on behalf of the parties and find that the points of arguments, raised above in respect of enhancement of compensation amount in terms of sale transactions i.e., Ex. P46 to Ex.P48, are not without merit inasmuch as, it is an admitted fact that the entire acquired land, though situated in different revenue estates of five bastis/villages, was a compact piece of lands, adjoining to each other. In other words, the same forms part of one block as shown in the siteplan, Ex.P1, which has been duly proved by PW2 Dalip Singh, Draftsman. It is also the finding of the learned Reference Court that the major portion of the acquired land had already been notified as municipal area of Jalandhar town. Not only that, the learned Reference Court has given a categoric finding, which is based on cogent evidence that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 67 Kms from the Bus Stand and Railway Station of Jalandhar City. Further, it is also evident that in the vicinity of acquired land, there is a Sports Complex and also Industries, which indicate that the area nearby the acquired land was developing at a fast speed in the days of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. All these aforesaid factors go a longway to show that there was potentiality in the acquired land for being developed as commercial, residential and industrial purposes. The acquired land is situated on both sides of the old metalled road leading to Kapurthala City and it is further apparent from the siteplan, Ex. P1, that the aforesaid sale instances i.e. Ex. P46 to Ex.P48, also pertain to the land situated in the vicinity of the acquired land and also on one side of the aforesaid road. Thus, the learned Reference Court has rightly taken into consideration these sale transactions while determining the marketvalue of the acquired land. Admittedly, the acquired land is not located in different parcels and was acquired by one and the same notification and for the same purpose, i.e., for settingup the Leather Goods Complex and the same forms one compact/block. So categorization of the acquired land for the purpose of determination of marketvalue by the Collector was not justified, whereas, taking the entire land as one block and fixing the uniform rate of the same by the Reference Court is held to be quite reasonable and justified. In these given facts and circumstances, the facts contained in aforecited rulings, relied upon by learned counsel for the Corporation, are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. Therefore, no benefit can be derived by them from the observations made by their lordships in the aforecited rulings.
Before I proceed further, it would be relevant to discuss the observations of learned Reference Court that the marketvalue of the land, which was assessed at the rate of Rs.1,65,000/ per annum in the year 1983 i.e., the year of saletransactions Ex. P46 to Ex.P48, was reduced to Rs, 1,15,000/ on account of the drain of dirty water (Nalah) flowing through the acquired land. In fact, this observation, for the reasons given hereinafter, is unwarranted and unjustified, inasmuch as, the drain of dirty water, as depicted in the siteplan, Ex.P1, does not passthrough the acquired land as observed by the learned Reference Court, rather, the same flows on the one side i.e., eastern side of the acquired land. The sale instances, Ex, P46, Ex. P47 and Ex. P48, also pertain to the land, which is located in the vicinity and eastern side of the aforesaid drain of dirty water. In fact, as per the provisions of Section 51A of the Act, certified copies of registered saledeeds proved on record as Ex. P46, P47 and P48 are per se admissible in evidence. These saleinstances are dated 13.4.1983, whereas, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.3.1985 i.e., almost after about 2 years of registration of the aforesaid sale deeds, which have been made basis to determine the marketvalue of the acquired land, meaning thereby, the drain of dirty water was already there, when these aforesaid saledeeds came into existence. So, when these sale deeds were registered in the year 1983, at that time also, the existence of the drain of dirty water must have been taken into consideration by the vendees of the said sale deeds. Thus, while judging from any angle, it is beyond comprehension as to why the learned Reference Court reduced the marketvalue of the land from Rs. 1,65,000/ to Rs. 1,15,000/ per acre. In these given facts and circumstances, it is held that in fact, the market value of the acquired land in the year 1983 was not less than Rs.1,65,000/ per acre.
Here in the instant case, we are to determine the marketvalue of the acquired land on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is almost two years after the registration of the aforesaid sale deeds, i.e. Ex. P46, Ex.P47 and Ex.P48 which have already been held to be comparable and representative the market value of the acquired land in the year 1983, whereas, the sale instances, relied upon by the respondents, do not seem to be reliable as the saleconsideration mentioned therein is shown even less than the Collector''s rates depicted in Ex. P5, wherein, the same had been fixed at Rs. 1,08,100/per acre. Here it can also be safely observed that there is tendency of vendees to show less consideration in the saledeed in order to escape from the payment of stamp charges. Thus, the marketprice of the land is held at the rate of Rs. 1,65,000/ in the year 1983. It has to be further determined as to what would be the marketprice of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e., on 27.3.1985. In this regard, it is a settled law that the market price of the acquired land in the absence of any cogent evidence or saledeed, can be increased by 12% per annum. It will also be relevant to mention here that the prices are increasing and the judicial notice of the increase has also to be taken while determining the market value of acquired land. The legislature has come to the rescue of the landowners and provided vide Section 23(1A) of the Act that the claimants shall be entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as the increase in price for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of announcement of the award or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Thus, from these provisions, it can be safely inferred that the legislative intention is also there to recognize the increase of 12 per cent in price every year. In this view of the matter, the market price of the land, which was Rs. 1,65,000/ per acre in the year 1983, by making an increase of 12 per cent per annum, is worked out at Rs. 2,04,600/ per acre on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e. 27.3.1985. Ordered accordingly.
Now, adverting to the last contention pertaining to severance charges, which have been denied by the learned Reference Court to the four land owners, namely, Gurbhajan Singh, Gursharan Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh, in this regard, suffice it to say that major portion of the lands of these land owners was acquired. It is there in the statement of landowners and also in the award passed by the Collector that there was tubewell, which was source of irrigation in the land and that has also gone with the acquired land. So, the leftout land of these landowners is without any source of irrigation. This factor has rendered the land of these landowners as uneconomical and now the same cannot be irrigated unless a new tubewell is installed and as such, keeping in view all these factors in mind, it was perhaps so that the Collector had granted severance charges at the rate of 10% of the marketvalue of their acquired land, but this factum has not been appreciated by learned Reference Court in right perspective. Even otherwise, under Section 25 of the Act, it is laiddown that once the amount of compensation is awarded by the Collector, that cannot be reduced by the Reference Court. Here in the instant case, as discussed above, learned Collector, after taking into account the disturbance and the bifurcation of the source of irrigation, had assessed the severance charges at the rate of 10% of the market value of the acquired land. No logic or any ground has been putforth by learned counsel for these land owners to raise this aforesaid rate of severance charges, already granted by the Collector. In the given facts and circumstances, I also find no reason to deviate from the amount of compensation awarded on account of severance charges i.e. 10% of the market value of the acquired land, by the learned Collector. Hence, the finding of learned Reference Court for not awarding any severance charges to these four above named landowners, is setaside and that of the Collector is upheld.
It is also to add here that there is no other cogent and convincing evidence on the file, which could make any entitlement of compensation on account of severance charges/damages to any other landowner except for these four persons namely, Gurbhajan Singh, Gursharan Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh.
In the result, all the 34 appeals bearing Regular First Appeal Nos. 1802 of 1996, 1459, 1799, 1166, 1169 to 1171, 1602 to 1608, 1641 to 1644, 1698, 1742, 1798, 1800 to 1803, 2084, 2130 2305, 2397, 2407, 1167, 1168 of 1995, 582 of 1996 and 2014 of 2003 filed by the claimants/landowners for enhancement of compensation are allowed with proportionate costs and consequently, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is enhanced from Rs. 1,15,000/ to Rs. 2,04,600/ per acre and at the same time, four appellants, namely, Gurbhajan Singh, Gursharan Singh, Harjit Singh and Jasbir Singh are also held entitled to 10% severance charges of market value of the acquired land. All the landowners are also entitled to all the statutory benefits as permissible under the Act.
Rest of 28 appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1669 to 1675; 2180 to 2199 of 1995 and 4071 of 2002, filed by Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation, against the impugned judgment dated 27.1.1995, are dismissed with no order as to costs. Deficiency in the court fee, if any, to be assessed by the Registry, shall be made good by the appellants, within two months from today. Memo of costs be prepared.