Gurkirpal Singh vs The State of Punjab

D.V. Sehgal, J.—This judgment shall dispose of R. F. A. Nos 579. 978 and 839 of 1978. Both these appeals have been taken up together for the reason that the piece of land which is subject-matter of acquisition therein as also its owner are the same. RFA No. 579 of 1978 arises out of the award dated 21.1 19 8 of the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar in Land Acquisition Case No. 190 of 1975 and pertains to the compensation with regard to the market value of land acquired. RFA No. 839 of 1978 arises out of the award dated 31-1-1978 of the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar in Land Acquisition Case No. 170 of 1975 and pertains to the value of the building and other structures on the land acquired besides compensation for shifting charges and loss of business incurred by the landower-Appellant.

The State of Punjab acquired land measuring 201. 79 acres for establishment of the residential urban estate, Mohali district Rupnagar in pursuance of notification dated 9. .1971 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) which was duly published in the government gazette. The landowner-Appellant was the owner of 4 Kanals of land bearing Khewat Khatauni No 85/113, Khasra No. 22/G 1/2 (3 Kanals and 7 Marlas) and 15/1/1/1 (0 kanals 13 Marlas). This land was situated on Chandigarh-Ludhiana highway at a strategic point from where the boundary of urban estate Mohali starts. It is not in dispute that this land was at the same level as the highway and a petrol pump besides drive way, tanks, boundary wall etc. was installed by the Appellant on this land and he was running the business of petrol filling station on the land in dispute on the date of the notification.

The Collector determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. The Appellant being dissatisfied made his reference application u/s 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge while deciding his Land Acquisition Case No. 190 of 1975 made his award dated 21-1-1978 wherein following a judgment of this Court Exhibit A 26 he determined its market value at Rs. 30,000/- per acre. The Appellant is still aggrieved with the quantum of compensation in lieu of the market value of the land acquired and has, therefore, filed R. F. A. No. 579 of 1978

I have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, on behalf of the Respondents. In my view the land of the Appellant which has been acquired on which the petrol pump was set up cannot be simply treated as Barani land and its market value determined at Rs. 39,000/- per acre like the rest of the large tract of land which was acquired for setting up of the residential urban estate. In fact this piece of land measuring 4 Kanals had not only the potentiality for its use as a commercial site but was in fact being so used. Its market value is, therefore, to be determined taking into consideration its own unique features. Numerous instances of sale of different pieces of land during the years 1967 to 1971 in the revenue estate of Mohali have been adduced in evidence as Exhibit A.1 to A 25. There are two instances nearest in time to the date of notification i. e. 9.6.1971. The first one is Exhibit A. 17 by which one Kanal of land was sold on 22nd February, 1971 for Rs. 10,000/-. This brings its price per acre to Rs. 80,000/-. The second instance is represented by Exhibit A. 19 which is a mutation regarding the transaction of sale of one Kanal of land which took place vide sale deed dated 21-8-1971, the certified copy of which is Exhibit A 24 by which again one Kanal of land was sold for Rs. 12,000/- which brings its price per Acre to Rs 96 000/-. There are two other instances of sale nearest in time which took place on 29-12-1970 and 18-12-1970 Exhibits A.15 and A.16 respectively the price of the land sold thereby per acre is Rs. 72,718/- and Rs. 81 111/-. Through these two transactions 1 Kanal 13 Marias and 18 Marlas of land were sold. No doubt the area of the pieces of land sold through the transactions referred to above is one Kanal on the average while the land of the Appellant which has been acquired is 4 Kanals but it could be favourably compared with those pieces of land particularly when it abuts the highway and is used for a commercial purpose. The Appellants has mentioned in its grounds of appeal that the market value of the land acquired on the date of the notification ranged between Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 96,000/- per acre. Taking average of the above said four transactions, I shall determine its market value at Rs. 82,000/- per acre.

Now coming to RFA No. 839 of 1978 it may be mentioned that the Collector vide his award dated 29.3.1973 assessed the value of the structure including driveway, boundary wall etc. on the land in dispute at Rs. 20,797/-. He allowed shifting charges of Rs. 2,000/- as on acquisition of the land the Appellant was required to shift his business of petrol pump from there. The compensation on account of loss of business was assessed by him at Rs. 1,000/-. Thus a total sum of Rs. 23,797/- was awarded as compensation. The Appellant being dissatisfied made reference application u/s 18 of the Act and the same was decided as Land Acquisition Appellant is not entitled to any compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Collector This appeal has been filed against the aforesaid award dated 31.3.1978.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on the record. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has not taken into account the material pieces of evidence. The compensation awarded by the Collector on the above account is wholly inadequate. The first item of compensation that was claimed was that the Appellant had spent Rs. 21,000/- on earth filing and improvement of the land to bring the same at the level of the National highway. The fact that the expenditure was incurred by the Appellant on earth filing was not disputed in the reply filed by the Collector before the learned Additional District Judge. All that was averred in the written statement in reply to this claim was that it had been taken into account while assessing the market value of the structure of the petrol pump. This, however, does not appear to be so when the statement of Shri R L. Angi, Executive Engineer, PWD B & R, RW1 is gone through. He has stated that the market value of Rs. 20,797/- was assessed by him and it includes the value of the metalled road, boundary wall and electric fitting. He has nowhere mentioned that the item of earth filling was taken into account by him. I, however, find that the claim of earth filing to the tune of Rs. 21,000/- made by the Appellant is not supported even by the evidence produced by him on the record. Narinder Kumar, Engineer AW 2 has prepared an estimate of valuation of the installations and developments on the land in dispute. He has qualified the earth filling at Rs. 40,000/- cubic ft. and has assessed its cost at Rs. 6,000/-. I shall, therefore, award Rs. 6,000/- only for the item of earth filing to develop the land and to bring it at the same level as the National highway for the purpose of installing filing station

The Appellant has claimed Rs. 83,500/- for the following items of installation on the land in dispute:-

Construction of culverts to provide drainage Rs. 10,000/- system

(ii) Construction of metalled road (''bitumen Rs. 20,000/- coated") as an approach road and drive way to the petrol pump

(iii) Cost of installlation of underground tanks Rs. 10,000/- for storage of high speed diesel oil and petrol pump island

(iv) Cost of construction of boundary walls, Rs. 40,000/- sales office, toilet and store

(v) Electrification of pumps, sales office and Rs. 8,000/- other structures with non-flamable cables

(vi) Installation of water hand-pump at site Rs. 500/-

Total Rs. 88,500/-

Narinder Kumar AW 2, however, in his estimate Exhibit A.2 has worked out the cost of ail these installations and constructions works at the site at Rs. 68,000/- by giving the detail of each particular item. As against this Shri R L. Angi RW 1 has not given any detail whatsoever for working out the value of these installations at Rs. 22,797/- which has therefore to be rejected outright. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that estimate Exhibit A.2 may be exaggerated to some extent. I shall, therefore, determine the market value of the installation and the works on the land in dispute as mentioned above at Rs. 45,000/ .

The Appellant has claimed that on acquisition of the land in dispute he stands deprived of the business of petrol pump and for loss of business he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This claimed is seriously disputed by the learned Advocate-General. It is contended that in fact the Appellant is being allowed to carry on the business of petrol pump at the site in dispute on payment of certain amount of rent Reference to the evidence on the record shows that the entire land measuring 4 Kanals acquired from the Appellant was given out to him on lease by the State at Rs. 9,870/- per annum for a period of two years in the first instance. Later on, however, two Kanals of land out of land in the rear was excluded and only 2 Kanals of land on which the installation including the petrol pump, drive way etc. exist was given on rent to the Appellant at Rs. 550/- per month i e Rs. 6.600/- per annum. The learned Counsel on both the sides agree that by now the Appellant has paid merely Rs. 98,000/- towards rent for running the business of petrol pump at the site in dispute Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that he feels insecure. He has not been able to make out any further development on the petrol pump to attract customers for the reason that he may be dispossessed from the land at any time he may have to shift the petrol pump. Thus, the loss which he comes to suffer on this account has to be assessed. As regards the rent paid by the Appellant to the State Government the contention on behalf of the Respondent is that on the basis of the market value for land and installation which I propose to determine the interest accruing on the amount of compensation shall be almost equal to the amount of rent which the Appellant had paid so far This is no doubt so but one factor which is being ignored is that had this piece of land not been acquired from the Appellant its market value by now would have appreciated many folds Therefore, the interest on the amount on compensation payable to the Appellant on acquisition of the land is not a factor to be taken into consideration to set it off against the compensation for loss of business which he suffers on the acquisition of the land. The claim made by the Appellant, in my view is quite excessive. I choose to determine the same at 1 Rs. 50,000/- only. The amount of compensation thus payable to the Appellant on account of earth filing, value of the building and other installations at the land and the loss of business would come to Rs. 1,01,000/- only which I hereby allow,

As a result of the above discussion both these appeals are allowed with the proportionate costs, in the terms mentioned above. The Appellant shall also be entitled to payment of solarium at the rate of 30 per cent, additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the notification u/s 4 of Act i e. 9.6.1971 till the date of the award of the Collector i. e. 29.3.1973 on the value of the land and the value of the building and other installations including earth filing which has been determined at Rs. 51,000/- He shall also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation determined above at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for a period of one year from the date of dispossession which date shall be the date from which the site of the petrol pump has been given on rent to him i. e 24.4.1973 and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the period subsequent thereto till the date of actual payment of the entire amount of compensation to him.