Kuldip Singh and Others vs The Punjab State and Another

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Feeling dis-satisfied with only partial acceptance of Regular First Appeal Nos. 54 of 1984 and 853 of 1983 filed by them for enhancement of compensation, the appellants have filed these appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent for further enhancement of the compensation.

THE FACTS:

For the purpose of construction of Mukerian Hydel Channel, the State Government issued notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (published on 24th October, 1980) (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for acquisition of land out of the revenue estate of villages Nikuchak, Jugial etc. Vide award dated 11th September, 1981, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the following rates:

(1) Rs.6,416.75 per acre (Rs.4,870.50 per ghumaon) in respect of the area situated within the limits of village Nikuchak.

(2) Rs.8,649.12 per acre (Rs.6,564.40 per ghumaon) in respect of the area situated in village Jugial.

He also awarded solatium at the rate of 3%.

On the reference sought by the land owners, the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur enhanced compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per ghumaon. He also declared that they are entitled to 15% solatium on the amount of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of delivery of possession upto the date of realisation.

The learned Single Judge partly allowed Regular First Appeal Nos. 54 of 1984 and 853 of 1983 filed by the appellant-Kuldeep Singh and others and Dilbagh Singh respectively and enhanced the compensation of the Barani land to Rs. 12,000/- per ghumaon. The learned Single Judge also ordered payment of compensation of Rs.5,000/- to Dilbagh Singh in respect of pucca wall. He also awarded 50 per cent of the market value of their acquired land as compensation in lieu of their unacquired land. The relevant extracts of the judgment, under appeal, are reproduced below:

"The perusal of the sale deed, Exhibit A-2 shows that on 27th January, 1976, land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas forming part of killa No. 1/619 along with trees growing thereon was sold for Rs.4,000/- that is at the rate at a little more than Rs.21,000/- per ghumaon but it cannot provide genuine basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land as there is no indication therein about the separate value of the trees growing on this land or the number of such trees. The sale deed, Exhibit A-3 pertains to the sale of 10 marlas of land out of Khasra No. 1/742 for Rs.4,000/- that is at the rate of Rs.64,000/- per ghumaon. The land subject matter of the sale deed abuts on the metalled link road to village Dacarpur according to the plan, Exhibit A-4 whereas the acquired land falls away from the said road. Under the circumstances, both the sale deeds were rightly discarded by the trial Court while assessing the market value of the acquired land on 24th October, 1980. On the other hand, the Division Bench of this,Court, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 443 of 1984 Bishan Dass v. State of Punjab, decided on 3rd September, 1985, relating to the acquired land of other village for the same project vide notification issued in the month of April and October, 1980 had awarded compensation of the acquired land at the flat rate of Rs.1,200/- per ghumaon on the basis of an agreement between the parties even though the learned Additional District Judge had awarded compensation of that land at the rate of Rs.16,000/per ghumaon while the Single Judge reduced it to Rs.10,000/- per ghuamon. Though there is no specific indication available from the said judgment of the Division Bench about the quality of the land, but it appears that it was of Barani nature. The quality of the land in the semi-mountainous region where the Hydel Channel is being constructed is almost the same except that some of the farmers had sunk deep tubewells for irrigating their land. Thus, there is no justification for enhancing the compensation of Nehri land but the compensation of Barani land is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- per ghumaon on the basis of decision of the above referred Division Bench.

Regarding the compensation of severance of land holdings, it transpires that Dilbagh Singh and others had claimed in reference u/s 6 of the Act that out of their total land holdings of 20 kanals 19 marlas, land measuring 20 kanals 10 marlas has been acquired and 9 marlas of unacquired land has been rendered useless. Even though they have not claimed any specific compensation, the learned Additional District Judge admitted this aspect of the matter but did not allow compensation on this score by holding that they have not specifically pleaded that actual loss suffered by them. The law is well settled on the point that court has to take into consideration the loss suffered by a land owner due to severance of land holdings by acquisition of some portion of his land. One can well visualise that the land owner will not be able to cultivate their 9 marlas of unacquired land, so it has been rendered useless for them for all intents and purposes. Similarly, in the case of Kuldip Singh and others, in Regular First Appeal No. 54 of 1984, it is alleged that out of total area of 42 kanals, the State has acquired 35 kanals of land and there remains only 7 kanals of unacquired land which has become useless for agricultural purposes. The learned Additional District Judge did not allow any compensation on the score by holding that no specific amount of compensation was claimed. This view also appears to be erroneous as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that one cannot effectively cultivate small area of land with the help of yoke of bullocks as the cost of its cultivation would work up to more than the actual production. Thus, appellants Dilbagh Singh, Kuldip Singh etc. and another shall be entitled to 50 per cent of the market value of their acquired land as compensation of their unacquired land."

The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:-

"For the forgoing reasons, all these appeals are partly accepted to the extent referred above. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate cost besides a solatium of 30 per cent over the compensation of the acquired land only and not on the compensation on account of severance of land holdings. They shall also be entitled to 12 per cent interest per annum over the market value of their acquired land from the date of publication of notice u/s 4 of the Act till the pronouncement of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector or from their dispossession whichever is earlier. They shall also be entitled to 9 per cent interest over the compensation of their acquired land for the first year from the date of their dispossession and 15 per cent interest thereafter till its payment."

In support of these appeals, Shri Mittal urged the following points:-

(i) The learned Single Judge has erred in no enhancing the compensation payable in respect of Chahi land and, therefore, the impugned judgment be modified by directing the respondents to pay enhanced compensation in respect of Chahi land equal to 1-1/2 times of the compensation found payable in respect of Barani land.

(ii) Appreciation of evidence made by the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

Shri Mittal relied on the judgment dated 30th January, 1987 in Regular First Appeal No. 1877 of 1984 (decided along with Cross Objection No. 2-CI of 1987) vide which the market value of Chahi/Nehri land was determined at Rs.28,000/per acre for the purpose of award of compensation and for Barani land, it was determined at Rs. 16,000/- per acre.

The learned Advocate General supported the impugned judgment and argued that the appellants are not entitled to claim enhanced compensation on the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Regular First Appeal No. 1877 of 1984.

In our opinion, the submission made by Shri Mittal on the basis of judgment of Regular First Appeal No. 1877 of 1984 (Cross Objection No.2 C-l of 1987) cannot be accepted because although the land falling in the revenue estates of villages Bamboowal and Sunderpur to which the land owners (respondents in that appeal) belonged, was acquired for Mukerian Hydel Channel and the learned Single Judge accepted their plea for award of compensation at the rates fixed for village Ittian on the ground that the land in the three villages was of similar quality, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to draw our attention to any evidence to show that villages Nikuchak and Jugial are situated in the close proximity of villages Bamboowal, Sunderpur or Ittian and the land of all the villages is of similar quality. Therefore, the award of higher compensation to the land owners of other villages cannot be made basis for awarding higher compensation to the appellants.

We are also unable to accept the submission of Shri Mittal that the learned Single Judge has erred in not awarding compensation keeping in view the price specified in the sale-deeds produced by the land owners. A careful reading of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for not relying upon Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4 and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. A possibility of our forming a different opinion is not sufficient to hold that the impugned judgment is legally erroneous requiring interference by the High Court.

However, we find some substance in the argument of the learned counsel that in view of the enhancement of compensation of Barani land from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per ghumaon, proportionate increase in the Chahi/Nehri land should have been awarded. Therefore, to this extent, the claim of the appellants for payment of enhanced compensation deserves to be allowed.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are partly allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to get enhanced compensation in respect of Chahi land, keeping in view the enhancement of compensation for Barani land from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per ghumaon. The respondents are directed to calculate the proportionate enhanced compensation payable to the appellants. The appellants shall also be entitled to get benefit of section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act. 1984 qua the enhanced compensation. This shall be subject to their paying the requisite court fee.