Harbans Kaur vs State of Punjab

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

These three appeals have been filed by the landowners with the grievance that their claim for enhancement of compensation has been wrongly rejected by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the grounds of appeal indicates that the primary claim of the appellants is that the market value of the land was Rs. 65,000/ per acre instead of Rs. 35,000/ which has been assessed by the learned District Judge.

No one has appeared on behalf of the appellants.

Mr. Chhinna, who appears for the respondents, contends that the learned Single Judge has categorically observed in the order that the appellants had only urged that they should have been allowed solatium, interest and additional amount under the provisions of sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984. On this basis, the learned counsel submits that the challenge to the fixation of market value was never made by the landowners.

A perusal of the paper books shows that the appellants had paid court fee on the hypothesis that the market value had not been correctly assessed. They had made a claim that the market value was Rs. 62,000/. In the grounds of appeal in Regular First Appeal No. 505 of 1985, it has been categorically claimed that the amount of compensation be enhanced from Rs. 35,000/ to Rs. 62,000/ per acre. The appellants claimed a total enhancement of rupees three lacs upon which a court fee of Rs. 5,272/ had been affixed. They had also claimed solatium, interest etc. at the enhanced rates. Still further even in the letters patent appeal the same claim has been agitated and a court fee of Rs. 7,224/ has been paid. Moreover, it has been pointed out that in Regular First Appeal No. 282 of 1975 (Mewa Singh v. State of Punjab), the market value of the land was assessed by Hon''ble Mr. Justice M.R. Sharma at Rs. 62,000/ per acre. It has also been pointed out that Hon''ble Mr. Justice D.V. Sehgal had determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 82,000/ per acre in Regular First Appeal No. 579 of 1978 (Gurkirpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) R.R.R. 260). On this basis, in the present appeals, the appellants have urged that they should be awarded compensation by fixing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 85,000/ per acre.

In view of these facts, it does not appear to be in the interest of justice to deny the appellants a chance to agitate their claim with regard to the market value of the land. We consider it appropriate to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter for a fresh decision on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the claimants.

These appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.