Hari Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab and Another

K. Kannan, J.—All these batch of cases relate to determination of compensation for land for the purpose of laying SYL canal. The acquisition notices had all been for the years 1988 and 1989 at various villages over the SYL canal. The variation in values results from the respective relative proximity of the villages to the city of Chandigarh. The appeals at the instance of the State challenging the compensation are as being in excess of what the market could fetch and also as regards severance damages that have been awarded by the respective Courts. The land owners have come on appeals seeking for further enhancement of compensation. Since the acquisition of property is for the same purpose, they are all bunched and tabulation here would bring out the appeals by the State as well as the land owners.

In the tabulation, items Nos. 1 to 24 represent the appeals by the land owners and 25 to 35 represent the appeals by the State. It could be further noticed that all the references have been for the years 1988 between March and May 1988 except the appeals in Sr. Nos. 4 to 8 which are for the year 1989 as already stated above. In the manner of assessment, the Collector has allowed for differential valuation to be adopted by the categories of land considered as chahi, barani and gair mumkin except in the appeals in RFA Nos. 2520 of 1994 and 161 of 1996 where one more category banjar kadim is added and predictably the value of the land for chahi is higher than the value of the land for other categories. There has been no uniform approach brought in the manner of retention of differential valuation for different categories. For instance, the Reference Court has rejected the reference in the matters that fall for consideration in RFA Nos. 2344, 2345, 2347 of 2004 and 953, 1062, 1293 of 1994. In some cases a uniform valuation is adopted discarding the differential valuation. They are RFA Nos. 3480 of 1993, 2876 of 1994, 521, 1200, 1862 of 1995 and 2346 of 2004 and in rest of the cases the differential valuations have been taken. Since in majority of the cases, differential valuation had been taken for different categories of land over a long stretch of lands, I take the same to be appropriate and I will take the higher valuation as determination to represent the value for category of land as Chahi and retain the same proportion for decrease in the other categories namely barani and gair Mumkin.

In the manner of determination of value as I have already observed, the change in values depend on the relative proximity to the city of Chandigarh. The parties have given to me a topographical sketch of the lands and they show that the properties acquired were themselves put to different types of uses, namely residential, mixed use as commercial and residential, commercial, industrial, forest and open spaces. Proceeding from Chandigarh downwards, the properties are Mataur, Manak Majra, Bhago Majra directly. Along the same line there are six other villages; two on one flank, on the side of Kharar namely Siampur and Jandpur and in opposite flank, Matran on the side of Zirakpur. Three other villages are Dharak Khurd, Pamour and Majat but their exact location of the property is not found in the topography furnished by the land owners. In the manner of assessment made by the Reference Court, I notice a higher valuation of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for Matran. There has been, however, no uniformity in valuation in Matran itself, for it can be noticed that while for the property acquired after a notification dated 02.04.1988 has fetched a compensation at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre, for subsequent acquisition made on 09.05.1988, the valuation has been even lower at Rs. 45,000/- for Chahi by the Collector and claims for enhancement to the Reference Courts have been dismissed. There cannot be a variation in compensation for the properties in the same village Matran and a determination of compensation at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for some land owners and Rs. 45,000/- for some other land owners cannot be taken as correct. There has to be uniform valuation. Consequently, I would hold that the appeals which are listed out in Sr. Nos. 9 to 13 and 35 shall obtain the same valuation.

As regards the properties in Bhago Majra, which are set out in Sr. Nos. 14 to 20 the valuations have been uniform at Rs. 90,000/- for Chahi, Rs. 75,000/- for Barani and Rs. 65,000/- for gair mumkin. There is only reference for the property in Jandpur where the determination already made by the Collector at Rs. 56,644/- for Chahi, Rs. 42,104/- for Barani and Rs. 19,184/- for gair mumkin stood confirmed while dismissing the reference to the Reference Court. There were three references for Siampur and there have also been same valuation at Rs. 1 lac per acre for Chahi and corresponding decrease for other categories of land. There are three appeals for properties in Majat namely at Sr. Nos. 6 to 8 in RFA Nos. 521, 1200 and 1862 of 1995 adopting a uniform valuation at Rs. 1 lac per acre. I will discard the uniform valuation as done in the above cases and adopt a differential valuation.

The appeals only as regards severance are at the instance of the State which are tabulated at Sr. Nos. 25 to 34 and in one appeal at Sr. No. 35, the State is challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court.

To take up the first item of consideration namely regarding the provision for severance at 50% of the value of land left unacquired, the same conforms to the law laid down by this Court in several cases that represent the financial recompense for inconvenience owing the non-access or the reduction of economies of scales for being left with the smaller extent of property which is unviable for cultivation. I will not find any error in the determination of severance damages as assessed at 50% since admittedly, the purpose of acquisition namely the laying of SYL canal has caused vivisection of relatively larger holdings of property for various land owners and inevitably they have been put to loss. The assessment of damages made at 50% for severance is, therefore, maintained and the appeals at Sr. No. 25 to 34 are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the land owners seeking for a higher percentage of severance also cannot survive favourable consideration. The Cross Objections are also dismissed.

The land owners have referred to some judgments of this Court in village Mehmudpur, Tehsil Kharar, village Sottal and village Khunni Majra where the assessments have been made for acquisition of property for the same purposes. The notifications have been of various dates commencing from 1985 to 1989. In RFA No. 3225 of 1992 titled Satpal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab decided on 04.01.2011, the notification u/s 4 had been issued on 18.09.1985 for the property situate in village Mehmudpur where the High Court has assessed the compensation at Rs. 2 lacs for chahi, Rs. 1,60,000/- for barani and Rs. 1,20,000/- for gair mumkin. For a notification issued on the same date for village Sottal, the enhancement made by this Court in RFA No. 2267 of 1990 titled "Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab" decided on 26.11.2008 was also on the same line as decided in RFA No. 3225 of 1992. In RFA No. 3281 of 1993 titled "Sadhu Singh vs. State of Punjab" decided on 11.05.2010, the notification had been issued on 16.09.1988 for the property in village Khunni Majra and the valuation was also same at Rs. 2 lacs for chahi and relative proportionate decreases for other categories also. For acquisition of property at village Mehmudpur through a notification issued on 6/7.10.1989 in RFA No. 1259 of 1994 titled "Gurmit Singh Vs. State of Punjab", the compensation has been given at Rs. 2 lacs for chahi and relatively lower prices for other categories. These judgments have determined uniform compensation irrespective of the date of notification. I will take the compensation which is most favourable to the land owners namely of the compensation determined for village Mehmudpur for an acquisition made through notification dated 18.09.1985 at Rs. 2 lacs for chahi. It is not possible for me to ascertain from topographical sketch about the exact location of Mehmudpur and how they compare themselves in the manner of its location. In the manner of its location to the properties that were shown to be closer to Chandigarh are Mataur, Matran, Siampur and Jandpur. In the absence of material, I will go with the valuation at Mehmudpur itself as the appropriate valuation and provide for an escalation for the period from 18.09.1995 to 02.04.1988 or 09.05.1988 at the rate of 10% per year. If it has to be increased from 18.09.1985 to April or May, 1988, it would mean an additional amount of Rs. 53,333/- which I will round off to Rs. 50,000/- since some acquisitions have come through notification dated April and some for May 1988. The compensation, therefore, for the properties in Mataur, Matran, Siampur and Jandpur will be Rs. 2,50,000/- for Chahi and to retain the same proportion of decrease for Barani and gair mumkin. It shall be Rs. 2 lacs for barani and Rs. 1,50,000/- for gair mumkin. As regards the properties in Bhago Majra, which is farther away about 12 km from Mohali, I will make a partial modification by reducing the value by 20% to what is determined for the properties in village Mataur, Matran, Siampur and Jandpur referred to above. They shall consequently be Rs. 2 lacs for chahi, Rs. 1,60,000/- for barani and Rs. 1,20,000/- for gair mumkin. As regards the properties in Dharak Khurd, Pamour and Majat, I have no definite evidence about the location of the property. I will assume them to be farther away and take a 25% deduction on the valuation made for the remaining properties and they shall accordingly be Rs. 1,87,500/- for chahi, Rs. 1,59,000/- for barani and Rs. 1,12,500/- for gair mumkin and banjar kadim. All the compensation assessed by the respective Courts below would stand modified and the appeals filed by the land owners from Sr. Nos. 1 to 24 are allowed to the above extent with all statutory benefits provided under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeals filed by the State from Sr. Nos. 25 to 35 are dismissed and the cross objections at the instance of the land owners are also dismissed.