Jaspal Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

This judgment shall dispose of RFA No. 3636 of 1993 filed by the claimantland owners and RFAs No. 2318 of 1993, 2319 of 1993, 2320 of 1993, 2321 of 1993, 2322 of 1993, 2323 of 1993, 2324 of 1993, 2325 of 1993, 2326 of 1993, 2327 of 1993, 2328 of 1993, 2329 of 1993, 2330 of 1993, 2331 of 1993, 2332 of 1993, 2333 of 1993 and 2334 of 1993 (17 RFAs) filed by the State of Punjab against a common judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 31.8.1992, as common question of law and fact arises in these appeals. Hence, the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Punjab Government vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 9/10.3.1987 intended to acquired 6.67 acres of land in Village Bhagrana, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the purpose of construction of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal and for the construction of Bohakherid distributary from R.D.O. (sic)to 5342 metres, vide notification No. 1493/SYL/ Const./87, Declaration under 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on the same date i.e. 9/10.3.1987. Both the notifications were published in the locality through the process server and the publication in the newspaper was done on 13.3.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 9.9.1987 awarded compensation at the following rates:

Chahi

Rs. 60,000/ per acre.

Barani

Rs. 50,000/ per acre.

Gair Mumkin

Rs. 35,000/ per acre.

Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed for referring the matter to the District Judge. On reference, the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his judgment dated 31.8.1992 has enhanced the compensation of the acquired land to Rs. 1,25,000/ for Chahi land, Rs. 75,000/ for Barani land and Rs. 55,000/ for Banjar Qadim land. The land owners were also held entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. It is against this judgment that the present appeals have been filed. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lac per acre.

Shri R.S. Mamli, learned counsel for the claimantland owners has argued that in RFA No. 349 of the 1990, this Court has enhanced the compensation in similar acquisition proceedings; in RFA No. 349 of 1990, compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/ has been awarded for Chahi land, Rs. 1,00,806.45. for Rausli/Dakat land and Rs. 60,483.87 has been awarded for Gair Mumkin land. Shri Mamli has further contended that in the aforementioned appeal, the land was acquired in village Pawala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the purpose of construction of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that case was issued on 7.10.1985. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that as the land in the instant case also falls in Tehsil Rajpura, and this acquisition is for the same purpose, therefore, the compensation should be determined on the basis of the decision in RFA No. 349 of 1990. It has further been contended by the learned counsel that in the instant case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9/10.3.1987 i.e. approximately 11/2 years after the issuance of notification in RFA No. 349 of 1990, therefore, enhancement of 15% should be given to the claimants in the present case.

On the other hand, Shri D.S. Kumra, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab contends that although the purpose of the acquisition in the instant case as well as in RFA No. 349 of 1990 is the same i.e. for the construction of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal, but the claimants are not entitled to a proportionate enhancement of 20%. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State that at the most same compensation be awarded as in RFA No. 349 of 1990. In the light of decision in RFA No. 349 of 1990, learned counsel is unable to argue with regard to the reduction in the compensation awarded to the claimants.

Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the purpose of acquisition in the present case as well as in RFA No. 349 of 1990 was same i.e. for the construction of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal. A perusal of the statement of Darshan Singh Patwari shows that the potentially of the land in Village Bhagrana i.e. the village in the instant cases and the village referred to in RFA No. 349 of 1990 is the same. A perusal of the statement of PW2 Gurdayal Singh shows that the canal minor from village Barwala side passes through village Bhagrana i.e. the village in which land has been acquired in the instant cases. It is, thus, clear that the judgment rendered in RFA No. 349 of 1990 would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case in determining the market value of the land in question. As the acquisition in the instant case took place after approximately 11/2 years of the acquisition of land in RFA No. 349 of 1990, therefore, the claimants would be entitled to a proportionate enhancement of Rs. 7000/ per acre for each category of land acquired.

As a sequel to the above, the net result is that the claimantland owners would be entitled to compensation as follows ;

Chahi land

Rs. 1,42,000/ per acre.

Barani land

Rs. 1,07,806.45/ per acre.

Gair Mumkin

Rs. 67,483.87/ per acre.

The claimants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as awarded by Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 31.8.1992.

Resultantly, the appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed with proportionate costs while the appeals preferred by the State are dismissed without any order as to costs.