Punjab State and Others vs Ram Singh and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of following appeals bearing RFA Nos. 897 to 906, 1654 to 1659, 2079 to 2083, 2103 to 2106, 2126, 2137, 2138, 2220, 2225 to 2227, 2234 to 2238, 2374, 2561 to 2595, 2598, 2599 of 1996, RFA Nos. 236 to 253, 296, 782, 812, 816 to 818, 822 to 826, 970 to 980, 1044, 1045, 1898, 1997, 2433 to 2456, 2514, 2515, 2520, 2535, 2536, 2538, 2539 of 1997, RFA Nos. 365 to 367, 566, 713, 723, 889, 890, 1124 to 1126, 1359, 2900, 3387, 3627, 3663, 3705 to 3707, 3814, 4141, 4142 of 1998, RFA Nos. 207, 549, 550, 580, 2029 to 2036, 2064, 2331, 2652, 2923 of 1999 RFA Nos. 1657 of 2000, RFA Nos. 1438, 1439, 1454 to 1505, 1543, 2698, of 2001, RFA Nos. 411 to 413, 416, 417, 4162 to 4164 of 2002, RFA Nos. 1523 to 1526, 4343 of 2003, RFA Nos. 27, 348, 435, 436, of 2004, Cross Objection Nos. 144/CI, 171/CI, 172/CI of 1999, Cross Objection Nos. 41/CI, 72/CI to 91/CI, 94/CI to 96/CI, 98/CI, 99/CI, 100/CI to 105/CI, 107/CI to 109/CI, 116/CI to 118/CI, 123/CI, 124/CI, 126/CI, 127/CI to 134/CI of 2015, as the same arise out of common acquisition.

By filing the appeals and cross-objections, the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas by filing appeals, the State is seeking reduction thereof.

The land in the present set of appeals and cross-objections was acquired vide different notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''). The details of the land acquired notification-wise, area under acquisition, name of the revenue estates (Naloh Khas, Naloh Teeka Niari, Palangi, Sarti Teeka Gunera, Sarti Teeka Marwan, Sarti Teeka Kamila, Sarti Teeka Satin), compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector''), award given by the Reference Court, are as under:--

Against these awards both the parties are now in appeal and cross-objections before this Court.

Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the land in question was quite valuable as the same is located in District Gurdaspur. There had been earlier acquisitions of land in the area. The sale-deeds produced on record were not considered by the learned Court below while assessing the compensation. However, he could not refer to the land pertaining to the sale-deeds on any site plan produced on record. For the land pertaining to six different villages, namely, Phangota (Tikka Katal) Hadbast No. 403, Satin (Tikka Satin) Hadbast No. 404, Phangota (Tikka Samlat) Hadbast No. 403, Phangota (Tikka Gulial) Hadbast No. 403, Tharah Uparla (Tikka Ladhwal) Hadbast No. 399/2, and Darkua Bungla (Tikka Godhwan) Hadbast No. 405, acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 27.2.1987, this Court in RFA No. 1400 of 1991 Makhan Singh v. Punjab State and others decided on 15.10.2010 had assessed the compensation for different categories of land at different rates. The acquisitions in question being later in time, the landowners be granted increase @ 12% per annum with cumulative effect for the time gap. As there had been acquisition of land from time to time in the area, the last being where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.8.1995, acquiring land of villages Darkua Bangla Khas, Godhwan, Katal, Gulial, Dalial, Chibber, Phangota Khas, Ladhwal, Salwal, Lanoh, Satin, Patralwan, Godhwan and Kulara for the same purpose i.e. reservoir of Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, this Court in RFA No. 1772 of 2001 Parshotam and others v. The State of Punjab and others decided on 20.12.2011 had upheld the award of the learned Reference Court granting Rs. 1,600/- per marla for the entire acquired land. The compensation for the acquisition carried out earlier in time can be reduced by taking time gap into consideration.

Learned counsel for the landowners further argued that nearly at the same time when the land was sought to be acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 20.12.1994 in this area, the land was acquired in the State of Himachal Pradesh as well where Rs. 6,000/- per marla was awarded as compensation. Both the lands are adjoining to each other and there is no difference in the quality, location or otherwise between the two portions. Hence, the landowners deserve to be granted that amount of compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that initially acquisition in the area was for the purpose of reservoir for Ranjit Sagar Dam. Most of the land was barani, banjar jadid, banjar kadim, etc. A very small part of the land was chahi or gair mumkin abadi. It was a kind of valley, as the object was for storage of water for the purpose of dam. The value of the land in the area adjoining to the reservoir had not increased. The subsequent acquisitions were made as water level in the reservoir was sought to be increased. Still the Collector had already taken care of all these aspects and granted appropriate compensation. He further submitted that against the orders passed by this Court upholding the award of reference Court pertaining to acquisition of land in the year 1995, the State is already in appeal before Hon''ble the Supreme Court. One of the ground raised therein is that reliance on earlier acquisition for the purpose of defence where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.12.1991 was not relevant for the reason that the land was pertaining to revenue estate Suinti. The entire land was plain and located on a main road. It was about 10 kilometers away from the land acquired for Ranjit Sagar Dam. He further submitted that any award given by the State of Himachal Pradesh is not relevant as the acquisition in the present case is pertaining to the land located in the State of Punjab.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

As is evident from the facts on record, there had been number of acquisitions in the area from time to time for the purpose of construction of Ranjit Sagar Dam. First acquisition for use as reservior for the dam was made vide notification under Section 4 of the Act on 27.2.1987, whereby land measuring 1,602 acres of different villages was acquired. The aforesaid acquisition was subject matter of appeal before this Court in Makhan Singh''s case (supra), where the learned Court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land at the following rates:--

Nothing has been pointed by learned counsel for the landowners whether any appeal against that judgment of this Court was filed or not.

For next acquisition, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.10.1991. The compensation assessed by the reference Court for the aforesaid acquisition for different categories is as under:--

Just after three months vide another notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 30.1.1992, land measuring 762.10 acres was acquired for the same purpose, where the amount of compensation assessed by the learned Reference Court after increasing the compensation and reducing the categories was as under:--

Subsequent thereto, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 18.3.1994, land measuring 220.09 acres was acquired for the same purpose where the value assessed by the learned Reference Court was as under:--

Another notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 20.12.1994 was issued acquiring the land measuring 848.96 acres for the same purpose where the learned Reference Court assessed the compensation at the following rates:--

The valuation of land acquired vide following notifications under Section 4 of the Act is under consideration before this Court in the present bunch of appeals:--

"1. 27.02.1987

22.10.1991

30.01.1992

18.03.1994

20.12.1994"

It is evident from the award of the Collector that major chunk of land acquired was either barani or banjar kadim and small portion of land was either irrigated or gair mumkin abadi. Even the purpose for which it was acquired establishes this fact as it is acquired for use as reservoir for Ranjit Sagar Dam. The acquisitions from time to time were made for the purpose of increasing the storage capacity of the dam. The land mostly is in hilly terrain. It cannot be disputed that the construction of dam and reservoir being on the side of the acquired adjoining land and there being a particular level of storage of water, the value of the land will not increase with the passage of time as it cannot be put to residential or commercial use. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the landowners that the increase for the time gap @ 12% per annum with cumulative effect, deserves to be granted, is totally misconceived and rejected.

None of the sale-deed is found to be relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the reason that the land pertaining thereto has not been pointed on any site plan produced by the landowners. It is always the sale transactions which are comparable in location and quality which can be relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation.

Still if the time gap in the different acquisitions in the area is considered, in my opinion, the compensation as assessed by the learned Reference Court does not deserve to be interfered with as this aspect has been taken care of. The compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court for the different acquisitions is as under:--

As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the landowners that the compensation as awarded for the land of adjoining State of Himachal Pradesh for the same purpose be awarded to the landowners in the State of Punjab is concerned, the same deserves to be noticed and rejected. Identical arguments were raised earlier by the landowners with reference to the acquisition for the same purpose earlier where the land in adjoining State of Jammu & Kashmir was acquired where the compensation was paid at a higher rate. The arguments were rejected vide judgment of this Court in Makhan Singh''s case (supra). Relevant para thereof is extracted below:--

"The contention of the learned counsel for the landowners that the landowners should be awarded same compensation, which has been awarded to the landowners of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh for their acquired land, is not sustainable, firstly because the price of the land situated in one State cannot be made basis for the determination of the compensation of the land situated in another State. Moreover, the circumstances under which the compensation was awarded to the landowners of Jammu & Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh are not on the record. So in my opinion, it will not be safe to place reliance thereupon to assess compensation for the acquired land."

Even the argument that the award pertaining to acquisition of land where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.8.1995 be relied upon and a reverse cut be applied, is also misconceived for the reason that the State is already in appeal against the judgment of this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25701-25708 of 2014 - Punjab State and others v. Usha Rani, etc. etc. before Hon''ble the Supreme Court.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any case is made out for interference with the impugned awards passed by the learned Court below. The appeals filed by the landowners seeking enhancement and the appeals filed by the State seeking reduction thereof are dismissed.

Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to add that in this case an anomalous position has occurred where the cases pertaining to acquisition of land in the area where notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 7.8.1995 were decided earlier, whereas the appeals pertaining to earlier acquisitions were still pending. Propriety demands that in the matter of assessment of compensation pertaining to acquisition in the same area, the cases pertaining to earlier acquisition are decided first and then the later are taken up. To avoid any such anomalous position, this Court had issued comprehensive directions for the cases pending in the Reference Courts in RFA No. 2218 of 2007 Smt. Maya and others v. State of Haryana and others dated 4.5.2012, which are extracted below:--

"16. To streamline the dealing of cases under the Land Acquisition Act, with a view to ensure their expeditious disposal, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:

(1) The Land Acquisition Collector shall ensure that all the land owners who file objections furnish their complete addresses.

(2) All the objections received by the Collector in land acquisition cases shall be referred to the court for adjudication maximum within three months after receipt thereof. Along with the objections or bunch of objections, a certificate shall be annexed by the Collector to the effect that all the objections received upto that date for the acquisition in question have been sent to the court.

(3) Whenever a land reference is put up before the learned court below, to which it is entrusted, it shall ensure from the District Attorney/Assistant District Attorney and/or the Collector that all the objections received by the Collector upto date have been sent to the court for adjudication. A certificate to the effect has to be placed on record. In case the land references were received on different dates and were put up on different dates either for first hearing or for hearing after notice, the learned court below shall club all the land references arising out of the same acquisition to be heard on one date of hearing before it proceeds further in the matter. Assistance of the office of District Attorney is most relevant on this aspect.

(4) In case some objections are received late by the Collector for any reason whatsoever, he shall be duty bound to refer the same to the court immediately after its receipt so that the same is clubbed with the cases already pending and are disposed of along with that. Information about the cases already sent to the court shall also be furnished by the Collector.

(5) In case any objection is received after the disposal of the land references by the learned Reference Court, the Collector while sending the same to the court for adjudication shall annex a copy of the award/judgment of the court along with that, pertaining to the acquisition in question.

(6) The decision of the land references arising out of the same acquisition in piece-meal on different dates has to be avoided at all cost unless the reference is received late.

(7) The learned courts below to keep in view the directions issued by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Tanwar''s case (supra) pertaining to disposal of land acquisition cases which are extracted below:

"6. We are aware of the problem of back long in most of the Courts. The references under Section 18 should be treated as a class by themselves entitled to priority attention. If care and attention are devoted at the appropriate time, these cases can be easily disposed of by clubbing them groupwise and recording evidence after taking the consent of counsel for the parties. Most of the acquisitions these days relate to large patches of land and ordinarily they are covered under one notification. Cases which are covered by a common notification should be clubbed together for which a statutory foundation is available in the Amending Act of 1984 in extending the benefit of higher compensation to all lands covered by a common notification even if dispute is not raised. If that is done the total number of cases where evidence would be necessary is likely to be reduced and better attention can perhaps be given. The High Courts should take special note of the pendency of land acquisition references and where it is possible a Court may be set apart for those cases.

We expect every referee court to dispose of the references ordinarily within one year of receipt of the reference and the outer limit should be the end of the second year. The High Courts in exercise of their controlling powers should ensure enforcement of this position so that all pending references in the subordinate courts at the original stage may be disposed of within time frame indicated above."

(8) The cases pertaining to acquisition of land for a canal/drain/road/channel/distributory or of similar nature, where the acquired land passes through different villages in the form of a strip, endeavour should always be made to entrust the cases to one court. Even if the same arise out of different notifications, though issued close in time, the learned courts below should also make efforts to decide these cases collectively after perusing site plan for the entire acquired land. It would be in the interest of all the parties concerned that a site plan showing location of the entire acquired land and also the surrounding area is produced by the State in court. The learned courts below to keep in view the observations made by this court in R.F.A. No. 686 of 1991 - Lokeshwar Dutt v. The State of Haryana and another, decided on 16.8.2010, pertaining to the same issue, which are extracted below:

"However, finding that number of cases are coming before this court, where this type of situation is being repeated on account of which the court finds it difficult to determine the fair value of the acquired land, which may result in injustice to either of the party. Not only that, in number of cases, the applications are filed by the land owners for producing additional evidence, which, in fact, should be part of the evidence to be led by the land owners/State at the very first instance. In many cases, the court, in the interest of justice, had to ask the State or the party to produce on record the site plan showing the exact location of the acquired land, sale deeds etc. to avoid injustice to either of the party. This unnecessarily delays the disposal of cases. The basic things, which should be brought on record to enable the court to determine fair value of the acquired land is the notification under Section 4 of the Act, copy of the award, site plan to the scale, showing the acquired boundary vis-�-vis its location such as its closeness to the city, village, highway, internal road with all its positive and negative factors. Another important fact is that such a plan should have the status as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the date being crucial for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It would be appropriate if the sale instances sought to be produced by the land owners or the State are pointed out on the site plan to be produced on record by either of the party. In the absence of which it is difficult to locate the same and consider its true value. The site plan, which should be taken on record, should be on butter paper or cloth, as it is seen in a number of cases that when the appeals are heard after 15-20 years, the site plans, which are quite big and may be on thin tracing paper, are torn out making it difficult for the parties to refer to the same and also for the court to consider."

(9) At the time of filing of appeals against the awards of the learned Reference Court pertaining to an acquisition, the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer shall file an affidavit that appeals against all the awards of the learned Reference Court pertaining to the particular acquisition, have been filed.

(10) This court in R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010--The State of Haryana and another v. Sh. Tek Chand and others, decided on 11.10.2010, wherein the appeal was filed by the State against award of the learned court below despite the fact that the earlier award of the Reference Court, which had been relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation in that case had already been upheld by this court and there was no merit in the appeal even on the date of filing thereof, had issued following directions:

"To avoid unnecessary adjournments of the cases, I deem it appropriate to direct that in all appeals filed by the land owners or the State following information must be furnished in the appeal itself:

(i) In case the learned Reference Court had relied upon any earlier award pertaining to same or any other acquisition, the fact as to whether any appeal against the same is pending or not, should be mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The number of such appeal and status thereof be also mentioned.

(ii) In case no earlier award is relied upon by the Reference Court, it should be mentioned that the Reference Court has not relied upon any earlier award.

The aforesaid facts should be mentioned in the last para of the grounds of appeal before the prayer clause. The Registry is directed to ensure compliance of the requirement. This may be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for notifying to the learned members of the Bar."

(11) In case the State fails to file appeals in all the cases decided by the Reference Court and ultimately the amount of compensation is reduced by the higher court, the State shall be duty-bound to fix the responsibility of the person(s) concerned for the lapse and also recover the amount of loss suffered from the guilty officer(s)/official (s).

(12) The learned Reference Court should also ensure from the Collector and/or the District Attorney that no land reference pertaining to the acquisition of land in the area, which is prior in time, is pending for adjudication and in case there was any acquisition of land in the area prior in time, the award passed by the Reference Court or the higher court therein should always be brought to the notice of the court concerned.

(13) It should be ensured by the court that the land references pertaining to acquisition of land, which is prior in time, are decided first before taking up the cases of the acquisition carried out subsequently."

The aforesaid directions need to be taken care of even in cases pending before this Court. It is the duty of the State to point out the facts regarding the same, as the landowners or the counsels appearing for the landowners in different acquisitions may be different and may not be aware of these facts.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed.