Punjab State vs Kamla Devi (Died) and Others

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 819 of 1985 filed by the State of Punjab as well as Cross-Objection No. 83-CI of 1986 preferred by the landowner-claimants as these arise out of the same award of the learned District Judge. Hoshiarpur, and rest on the same evidence.

In brief, the relevant facts are that land measuring 39 kanals 16 marlas was sought to be acquired by the State Government vide notification dated December 1, 1978, published on January 19, 1979, u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') for the construction of a bye-pass road at Hoshiarpur. The Laad Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per marla. The Collector also awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum over the market value of the acquired land for the years 1964 to 1979 on the basis of letter No. 1/26/82/LR/1/2831 dated March 9, 1983, of the State Government. The claimants being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation-successfully sought reference u/s 18 of the Act to the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide his impugned order dated February 18, 1985, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 600/- per marla besides allowing benefits of all the amended provisions of the Act Under issue No. 3 it was held that although the State Government is bound by its commitment to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the years 1964 to 1979, but the Court cannot enhance it as the provisions of the letter aforesaid cannot override the statutory provisions of the Act.

The State Government being aggrieved against the impugned order of the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, has come up in appeal while the landowners have filed cross-objections contending that they are atleast entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per marla.

Mr. K. P. Bhandari, the then learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate, maintained that the learned District Judge has wrongly taken into consideration the sale deed Exhibit A-2 and A-1 pertaining to small pieces of land. It was also maintained that the sale transactions subject matter of mutation Exhibit R-2, being relating to the part of the acquired land, was wrongly ignored. Mr. M. L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by, Mrs. Rekna Palli, learned counsel for the landowner-claimants on the other hand maintained that since the possession of the land was taken in the month of March, 1964 without its acquisition, the landowners should be awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of their dispossession and 15 per cent onwards. He also maintained that some compensation should be awarded for severance of the land holdings of the objector-land owners for acquisition of their lands on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Madras Vs. A.M. Nanjan and Another, . It was also stressed that the Collector being agent of the Government, the State is bound by his admission and thus the compensation of the acquired land should be enhanced to at least Rs. 750/- per marla. He further maintained that the sale deeds Exhibits A-2, and A-3 provide a genuine basis for assessing the market value of the acquired land and at the most 25 per cent cut should be applied for assessing the market value of the acquired land on the basis of these sale deeds pertaining to small pieces of land. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, .

It is a case of extreme hardship as admittedly the possession of the acquired land in the case in hand was taken in the month of March, 1964 without its acquisition on the mis-conception that this land also stood acquired for the construction of a bye-pass road vide notification published in the year 1962 whereby a portion of the land belonging to the present claimants was acquired, but all the same, the judicial forums have to confine their decision within the four corners of the statute. The relevant provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act reads as under :--

"23(1) in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration-

firstly. --the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the (notification u/s 4, Sub section (1);

secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector''s taking possession thereof;

thirdly,--the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector''s taking possession of the land, by reason of sawing such land from his other land;

fourthly,--the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector''s taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner or his earnings;

fifthly,--if in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change its residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and

sixthly,--the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration u/s 6 and the time of the Collector''s taking possession of the land."

Thus, there is absolutely no doubt that the only relevant factor for determining the compensation of the acquired land is its market value on the date or publication of notification u/s 4, Sub section (1) of the Act. Section 28 of the Act further makes it clear that if in the opinion of the Court the Collector had awarded inadequate compensation of the acquired land, the Court while enhancing the compensation may direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession for a period of one year and 15 per cent onwards. Thus, the entire scheme of the Act, i.e., the quantum of compensation, interest etc. is based on the publication of notice u/s 4 of the Act No doubt, the Collector had awarded 6 per cent per annum interest over the compensation of the acquired land from the years 1964 to 1979 on the basis of the instructions issued by the Punjab Government contained in the above referred letter, but, all the same, it is of no consequence for the judicial forums although the State is bound to pay this amount in view of its decision.

Regarding the inadequacy of compensation of the acquired land it transpired that the certified copies of mutations Exhibits Rule 2 to Rule 4 being not admissible in evidence as held by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu and Anr. (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 109. these are hardly of any help to assess the market value of the acquired land on January 19,1979. No doubt, although according to Gurdev Singh Clerk (PW 1) of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, the District Collector had proposed the market value of the acquired Sand at the rate of Rs. 750/- per mark to the Commissioner, but the Commissioner had not agreed to the same, yet it is of no consequence as there is no evidence on the file that the District Collector bad taken into consideration some relevant sale transactions. Moreover, the opinion of the District Collector having not been accepted by the Acquisition collector it cannot be said to be the final admission on his part or that it was binding upon the Government. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Madras v. A. M. Nanjan and Anr.1, is not attracted to the facts of the case in band as therein the award given by the Collector was held to be at least relevant material and may be in the nature of admission with'' regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State But. in the present case the opinion of the District Collector is hardly of any consequence as he has not given any award. The land subject matter of sale deeds Exhibits A-2 & A-3 executed in the year 1978 is located near the acquired land and abuts on the same bye-pass road. Admittedly, the acquired land is located within the urban limits of Hoshiarpur Town. Vide sale deed Exhibit A-2, 1 kanal area of land was sold for Rs. 20,000/-, i e., at the rate of Rs. 1000/ per marla Vide sale deed Exhibit A-3, 15 rnarlas of land was sold for Rs. 15,000/-on August 23, 1978. The entire consideration of the sale Ex A-2 was paid before the Sub-Registrar The very factum that the possession of the disputed land was taken over by the Government in the year 1964 on the basis of mis-conception this land has already been acquired vide notification published somewhere in the year 1962, clearly shows that the acquired land was abutting the bye pass road. The perusal of the plan Exhibit A-1 prepared by the Makhan Singh, draftsman. (PW-3) supports the conclusion that the lard subject-matter of sale deeds Exhibit A-3 abuts on the bye-pass road and Exhibit A-2 abuts on the bye pass road on one side and Another road on its other side in the copy Exhibit R-1 of Aks Shajra the depiction of land subject matter of sale deeds Exhibits A-2 and A-3 along the above referred bye pass also shows that the plan Exhibit A-1 was correctly prepared by the draftsman. It is the well-known fact that the market, price of the land located along the main road attracts more buyers and fetch more price than the similarly located large chunk of land. Under these circumstances, some suitable reduction has to be made in the price of small pieces of land while working out the market value of a large chunk of land. In Chimanlal''s case (supra), the Supreme Court under the facts and circumstances of that case hid he''d that 25 per cent reduction was required to be made by resorting to some guess work la the case in hand as the acquired land of the objectors either forms part of the bye pass road or abuts on it, it can be well said that 25 per cant redaction would be the safe criteria for assessing the compensation of the acquired land on the basis of sale transactions subject matter of deeds Exhibits A-2 and A-3. Thus the market value of the acquired land would work up to Rs. 750/- per marla.

Regarding the claim of the landowners for compensation on account of severance of their land-holdings, it transpires that Vishvsa Nath landowner (PW7) had simply stated that he and orthers had sufficient land near the acquired land and that the land holdings has been severed into two parts which had reduced its value. His testimony in this regard finds corroboration from the certified copy of the Jamabandi Exhibit A-5, as well as from the plans Exhibits A-1 and R-1, but all the same, no compensation can be awarded on this score as the value of the unacquired land has been enhanced due to tie construction of a bye-pass metalled road at Hoshiarpur because it had changed the situation potential of the unacquired land from agriculture to that of commercial, residential and industrial. It is not even alleged by Vishwa Nath claimant (PW7) that the irrigation facilities had been disrupted or the irrigation sources like tubewell etc were located on the acquired land.

For tile foregoing reasons, the compensation of the acquired land is enhanced to Rs. 750/- per marla. The claimants shall also be entitled to 30 per cent solatium over and above the market value of the acquired land in view of Section 23(2) of the Act. They shall also be entitled to the amount equal to 12 per cent per annum over the market value of the acquired land from the date of publication of notice u/s 4 of the Act till the pronouncement of award of the Land Acquisition Collector. They shall also be entitled to the interest of 9 per cent per annum over the enhanced amount from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act as, they had already been dispossessed in the year 1964 and 15 per cent onwards till its payment. In view of the above findings the appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed while the cross-objection filed by the landowner-claimants stands partly accepted to the extent referred to above. If need be, the landowners shall make up deficiency in Court-fee within a period of three months of this order in view of the findings of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, . The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs.