Mohan Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector, SYL, Patiala

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

Has the learned Single Judge not assessed the market value of the land correctly ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of seven Letters Patent Appeals. A few facts may be noticed.

On November 27, 1982 the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of 84.55 acres of land. Ultimately, land measuring 83.50 acres was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector had divided the land into seven separate parts depending upon its quality and awarded the compensation in respect of the land at different rates. The landowners were not satisfied. The matter was referred to the District Judge, Ropar, who found that the market value was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Still not satisfied, the landowners filed the Appeals. The learned Single Judge found that the market value of all types of Barani land including Banjar Jadid and Banjar Kadim (except Gair Mumkin and under Abadi) was 33,334/ per acre. The remaining land viz. Chahi was assessed at Rs. 40,000/ per acre. In respect of the Gair Mumkin Abadi land, the market value was assessed to be Rs. 62,608/ per acre. In this respect the learned Judge had upheld the findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Court.

Mr. R.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals, contends that the market value as assessed by the learned Single Judge is not correct. It has been submitted that according to the evidence on record the land in village Saini Majra was sold in June 14, 1982 viz. about 5 months prior to the issue of the notification under Section 4 at the rate of Rs. 80,000/ per acre. It has been further contended that according to the oral testimony of Lakhbir Singh, PW2, the land in village Saini Majra was similar to that of village Sirsa Nangal and Inderpura. Is it so ?

First the oral testimony. Lakhbir Singh, Revenue Patwari, stated that villages Inderpura, Sirsa Nangal and Saini Majra adjourn each other. However, during crossexamination he stated that he did not know if village Dewari intervenes village Sirsa Nangal and Saini Majra. He admitted that the land of village Saini Majra is "uneven", but he was ignorant about the quality of land of village Sirsa Nangal. He stated that he did not know "if the land of village Sirsa Nangal is worse than that of Saini Majra". The correct position in respect of the quality of land is borne out from the testimony of Jitu Ram who appeared as PW3. With regard to the land of village Sirsa Nangal, he stated that "it is a semimountainous territory". He also admitted that "village Saini Majra is at a distance of about 2 miles from Sirsa Nangal".

The oral testimony, thus, clearly shows that the land in village Sirsa Nangal is semimountainous. Village Saini Majra is at a distance of about two miles from Village Sirsa Nangal. In this situation, it is not surprising that the learned Single Judge took the view that the land of village Saini Majra was of a superior quality and, thus, it was sold at a higher rate. Furthermore, it deserves notice that at the stage of the trial the landowners had not produced any sale to support their claim with regard to the market value of the land. Only copies of mutations had been produced. At the stage of the hearing of the Appeals in this Court, Civil Miscellaneous No. 2674/CI/88 was filed in R.F.A. No. 2148 of 1986. In this application under Order 41 Rule 27 it was mentioned that copies of three sale deeds were being produced. Prayer was made for permission to place these documents on record. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge had allowed this application. The three sale deeds have been referred to in the order as exhibits P5/A, P6/A and P7/A. However, the paper book of the R.F.A. No. 2148 of 1986 has the three documents as had been produced by the appellantUjaggar Singh. No exhibit has been put on these documents. Despite this, we have perused these three sale deeds.

The first sale deed was executed on June 14, 1982 by Piara Singh. It relates to 2 kanals and 6 marlas of land in village Saini Majra. The second sale deed was executed by Bachan Singh on June 9, 1982 in respect of 3 kanals of land which was sold for an amount of Rs. 15,000/. By the third sale deed, 1 kanal of land was sold for an amount of Rs. 10,000/ on June 2, 1983. Even on consideration of these documents on which no exhibit marks have been formally put, we are unable to sustain the claim of the landowners for enhancement of the compensation. Firstly, the transactions evidenced by these three documents are admittedly in respect of small pieces of land measuring 1 kanal to 3 kanals. In the present case, admittedly, more than 640 kanals of land has been acquired. Secondly, the transaction dated June 2, 1983 is more than 7 months after the issue of the notification under Section 4. This cannot constitute valid basis for fixation of market value. Thirdly, on a consideration of the sale deed dated June 9, 1982, we find that 3 kanals of land was sold for Rs. 15,000/. In other words, the market value on this basis cannot be Rs. 40,000/ per acre. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the market value as assessed by the learned Single Judge is so grossly inadequate so as to call for interference in the Letters Patent Appeals.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, we do not find that the market value as assessed by the learned Single Judge calls for any interference. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.