Karam Chand vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.—(Sic) against judgment dated 6.9.1988 of Hon''ble I.S. Tiwana, J., the learned Single Judge of this Court (as then he was) delivered in R.F.A. No. 1241 of 1987, Karam Chand and another v. State of Punjab and another. The respondentState Government acquired land under notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short to be referred as L.A. Act) dated 23.9.1983 for construction of an approach road to high level bridge constructed over river Sutlej flowing through the Revenue Estate of village Jhaj. The land of the appellants Karam Chand and Agya Ram sons of Ram Rakha, residents of village Jhaj was included in the acquired land aforesaid. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land which comprised of ''Chahi'' as well as ''Barani'' land at a flat rate of Rs. 12,634/ per acre. The landowners were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them. According to them the said compensation was highly inadequate as their land was ''Chahi'' land and was of considerable value. At their instance a reference was made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act to the District Judge. The appellants contended before the District Judge that their acquired land was of high potentiality as it was located adjoining Garh ShankarNurpur Bedi and Nurpur BediAnandpur Sahib roads. The village school was situated at a distance of one killa from the acquired land. The focal point of village Dumewal and the United Commercial Bank and the shops were situated quite near the aforesaid acquired land. The appellants alleged that they used their acquired land for growing vegetables which used to be sold in the city nearby and they had good earning from the said acquired land. The learned District Judge held that the market value of the land acquired as evaluated by the Land Acquisition Collector @ Rs. 12,634/ per acre was inadequate and he relied on the award/judgment (Exhibit P 17) of his Court passed in Land Reference No. 45 dated 4.3. 1986 where the market value of the land of both the types i.e. ''Chahi'' and ''Barani'' had been assessed at Rs. 20,000/ per acre. The acquired land in the said award Exhibit P17 forms part of the same compact area as involved under the notification of this case issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act and had been acquired for the same purpose i.e. for construction of the approach road. Relying on this award, the learned District Judge assessed the market price of the acquired land at Rs. 20,000/ per acre for both types of land i.e. ''Chahi'' and ''Barani''. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the learned District Judge assessing the market price of the acquired land at Rs. 20,000/ per acre they filed R.F.A. No. 950 of 1987 which came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge held that the learned District Judge was quite justified in assessing the market price of the land acquired at Rs. 20,000/ per acre and he did not find anything wrong with the said assessment of the market price of the acquired land. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The landowners were dissatisfied and felt aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge and they have now filed this L.P.A.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Advocate General for the State of Punjab appearing for the respondents. We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also of the learned District Judge and perused the records of the case.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though their land, which had been acquired, was worth evaluation @ Rs. 80,000/ per acre which they had claimed in the reference, yet they confined their claim in the L.F.A. @ Rs. 50,000/ per acre. A perusal of the records of the case shows that the land of the appellants which has been acquired under the aforesaid notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act on 23.9.1983 is ''Chahi'' land. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned District Judge both assessed the market price of the ''Barani'' as well as ''Chahi'' land at the one and the same rate. The value of the ''Chahi'' land is evidently more than that of the ''Barani'' land and this fact is not disputed by the respondents. In order to examine the market price having been assessed by the learned District Judge which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, being improper and inadequate, we have taken into consideration the material i.e. the instance of sale placed on record by the claimants. This will appear from the judgment of the learned District Judge when he discussed issue No. 1. Eight instances of sale were relied on, the particulars of which are as under :

Sr. No.

Sale Deed No.

Date of Sale

Area sold

Kind of land

Sale price

Price per acre

1.

784 (Ex.P2)

6.11.81

0KIM

Vill. Jhaj "Chahi"

1,000/

1,60,000/

2.

190 (Ex.P3)

24.5.80

2K0M

Kind not mentioned.

6,000/

24,000/

3.

204 (Ex.P4)

27.5.83

2K18M

"Barani"

15,000/

41,379/

4.

682 (Ex.P5)

16.8.83

0K7M

"Barani" "Gair Mumkin"

1,500/

34,285/

5.

111 (Ex.P6)

4.5.84

0K7M

"Barani"

3,500/

80,000/

6.

221 (Ex.P7)

29.5.84

0K7M

Kind not mentioned

3,000/

2,40,000/

7.

220 (Ex.P8)

29.5.84

0K4M

do

6,000/

2,40,000/,

8.

1050 (Ex.P9)

14.10.86

0K3M

"Chahi"

13,500/

7,20,000/

Mutations refer to the same saledeeds.

The instances of sale transactions of the period near about the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act which was issued on 23.9.1983, are shown at Serial Nos. 3 and 4. The other sale instances shown at Serial No. 1 and 2 are of the dates 6.11.1981 and 24.5.1980 respectively. The sale instances mentioned at Serial Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are of the subsequent period i.e. of 4.5.1984, 29.5.1984, 29.5.1984 and 14.10.1986 respectively. The sale transaction of the next period to the date of the notification has been shown at Serial No. 4 which is in respect of sale deed No. 682 (Exhibit P5) dated 16.8.1983. The area sold by the saledeed is of 7 marlas of ''Barani Gair Mumkin'' land for a sum of Rs. 1500/. The price per acre works out at Rs. 34,285/. This saledeed is of a considerably very small area and cannot be considered for assessing the price of the acquired land. The other saledeed is dated 27.5.1983 (Exhibit P4). The saledeed number is 204 and an area of 2 kanals 18 marlas of Barani land was sold for Rs. 15,000/. The price per acre has been shown at Rs. 41,379/. The learned District Judge did not independently consider this sale instance relied on by the claimant on the ground that it had already been considered in the earlier award/judgment (Exhibit P17) and likewise the saledeeds relied upon by the respondents were duly discussed in the said judgment. We are of the opinion that the learned District Judge was not right in ignoring the sale transactions relied on by the claimants and to assess the market price upon the evidence led before him but in placing reliance on the earlier award, a copy of which had been filed as Exhibit P17.

The learned Single Judge while considering the question of market price, referred to the aforesaid two sale instances shown in saledeeds in Exhibits P4 and P5. He referred, in particular, the instance of sale of 2 kanals 18 marlas of ''Barani'' land vide saledeed made on 27.5.1983 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ (vide Exhibit P4) which showed the price per acre to be Rs. 42,000/. He held that the reference Court did not rely on the said saledeed as it felt satisfied that it was not a comparable sale. The learned Single Judge further pointed out that the learned counsel for the claimant appellants was not in a position to locate the area covered by the said transaction and unless and until it was shown that the area covered by the said sale transaction was of the same advantages and disadvantages in the matter of location and potential as the acquired land, it could not be taken as comparable sale. Regarding the case of the State, the learned Single Judge observed that "so far as the State Authorities are concerned, I find that in view of the finding of the learned District Judge that there was a focal point i.e. a mini market at a distance of about 3/4 kilometres from the suit land and the abadi of village Dumewal and a Government High School were also nearby, they also cannot succeed." He further held, "the land can certainly be taken to be a better located agricultural land. Therefore, it deserves to be treated at a little higher footing than the other agricultural lands. In view of the surroundings, the lower Court appears to be well justified in enhancing the rate as determined by the Collector." The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, himself did not proceed to consider the instances of sale relied upon by the claimants and despite referring the sale instance of the saledeed (Exhibit P4) he did not consider the same as a comparable sale transaction and upheld the findings of the learned District Judge by saying that the "Court, however, did not choose to award compensation at this rate probably it felt satisfied that it was not a comparable sale." The judgment of the reference Court, however, does not show that the sale transaction of 27.5.1983 regarding the sale of 2 kanals 18 marlas of ''Barani'' land for Rs. 15,000/ was not relied on the ground that it was not a comparable sale or that its land was not situated in the same area as the acquired land. In our considered view, the aforesaid saledeed dated 27.5.1983 (Exhibit P4) is a comparable sale and reflects the market price in May 1983 of the ''Barani'' land @ Rs. 41,379/ per acre. This saledeed is nearer in period to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act i.e. 23.9.1983. The rate per acre of this land, when rounded off, can be taken at Rs. 42,000/. We, therefore, place reliance on the said saledeed as reflecting price of the ''Barani'' kind of land at Rs. 42,000/ per acre in the relevant period.

The learned A.G. appearing for the respondent submitted that the area of the saledeed was rather small considering the land acquired which was an area of 69.9. acres and the price should be reduced when it is to be applied in respect of the larger area. In our considered view, the aforesaid rate of Rs. 42,000/ be reduced by 1/3rd i.e. by Rs. 14,000/ in order to reach the market price to be applied to the larger area which will bring the amount toRs. 28,000/ per acre. At the same time it has to be considered that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 42,000/ per acre is in respect of ''Barani'' land whereas the acquired land of the appellants is of ''Chahi'' kind which is undisputedly a better kind than the ''Barani'' kind of land. The price, thus, deserves to be increased for the superior kind of land by at least 25%. After giving a rise of 25% on the said value of Rs. 28,000/ per acre the net price would come to Rs. 28,000/ + Rs. 7,000/ (the rise by 25%) equal to Rs. 35,000/ per acres. The market price, thus, of the acquired land should be assessed at Rs. 35,000/ per acre. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellants/claimants are held entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 35,000/ per acre for their land acquired which is of ''Chahi'' kind. Besides the amount of compensation, they will be held entitled to get solatium and interest as awarded by the reference court.