Raja Ram (Died) through LRs. vs State of Punjab

G.S. Singhvi, J.—For the purpose of establishing New Mandi Township at Amarkot, the Government of Punjab acquired 241 kanals 19 marlas land of village Valtoha and 1 kanal 19 marlas of land of village Mehmudpur. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued on 7.10.1980 (published in the gazette dated 13.10.1980) vide award dated 28.5.1982, the Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation in the following manner:

For 20 karams deep belt along the road Rs. 60,000/- per acre For remaining land Rs. 20,000/- per acre.

The landowners filed 15 reference applications for enhancement of compensation. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar clubbed these applications and disposed them of by a common judgment dated 19.12.1984. He enhanced the compensation in respect of the land falling within 20 karams belt from Rs. 60,000/- per acre to Rs. 76,000/- per acre. The judgment of the Reference Court was challenged by the claimants who filed appeals for further enhancement for compensation. The State of Punjab also filed appeals for quashing the enhanced compensation awarded to the landowners. By a detailed common judgment dated 1.4.1987 rendered in Regular First Appeal No. 296 of 1985, Parbandhak, Mandir Mata Vaishno Devi, village Valtoha, District Amritsar v. State of Punjab, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal, filed by the State of Punjab and partly accepted those filed by the landowners by directing the payment of compensation at the following rates :

For 20 karams belt Rs. 96,000/- per acre For rest of the land Rs. 30,000/- per acre

In Regular First Appeal No. 609 of 1985, the learned Single Judge awarded additional compensation amounting to Rs. 59,159/- for the constructed house. He also awarded 30% solatium on the market price and interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking of possession and 15% per annum for the remaining period. An additional amount of 12% of market price from the date of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act as also been granted to the claimants.

Still not satisfied, the claimants have preferred these appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent. In the Letter Patent Appeal No. 398 of 1987, which arises out of the judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 615 of 1985, Raja Ram Sharma v. State of Punjab and Ors., the appellant has prayed for award of an additional compensation of Rs. 68,160/-. In the Letters Patent Appeal No. 388 of I987, which arises out of the judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 612 of 1985, Bhushan Kumar v. State of Punjab, the appellant has claimed additional compensation of Rs. 22,720/-. Likewise, in Letter Patent Appeal No. 389 of 1987, which arises out of the judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 613 of 1985, Gurcharan Dass v. State of Punjab, additional compensation of Rs. 2,32,720/- has been claimed. In the Letter Patent Appeal No. 752 of 1987 filed against the judgment rendered in Regular First Appeal No. 295 of 1986, Smt. Amjer Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab, the claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre. In the Letter Patent Appeal No. 753 of 1987 filed against the judgment of Regular First Appeal No. 296 of 1985, Parbandhak, Mandir Mata Vaishno Devi (supra), it has been prayed that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 1,10,000/ per acre.

The first contention urged by Shri R.K. Battas and Shri Y. K. Sharma is that the Land Acquisition Collector gravely erred in adopting the belting system in respect of the land which was situated on the crossing of Khem Karan-Amritsar and Valtoha-Amarkot roads. Learned counsel argued that the compensation should have been awarded at a flat rate for whole of the land. Shri Battas and Shri Sharma submitted that the learned Single Judge have also erred in approving the belting system adopted by the Collector ignoring the fact that the entire parcel of land constituted a contiguous whole. The second contention urged by Shri Battas is that even if the belting system is upheld the distance of 20 karams which is equivalent to about 105 feet is wholly unreasonable and land at least upto a distance of 500 feet should have been included in the first category and the owners of such land should have been made eligible for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 96,000/''- per acre. The third contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the difference of price in the two belts is totally unequitable and unreasonable keeping in view the fact that the entire area had a great potential for urbanisation. Learned counsel invited our attention to the evidence produced by the parties before the Reference Court and argued that the report Ex.P.W.16/1 submitted by the Sub Divisional Officer could not have been made the sole basis for limiting the compensation payable to the landowners to Rs. 30,000/- per acre in respect of the second block. They also argued that the learned Reference Court as well as the learned Single Judge have gravely erred in rejecting the plea set up by the appellants on the issue of likely future development of the land and .therefore, the compensation should be further enhanced atleast upto Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. They relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gulzara Singh v. State of Punjab 1993 LA.C.C. 612 and the judgments of this Court in Vidya Suri v. Punjab State 1994 LA.C.C. 73, Asra Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector 1996(12) L.A.C.C. 101, The State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh and Others, and Basant Singh v. The State of Punjab and Anr. 1997(1) LA.C.C. 359. The learned Advocate General supported the findings recorded by the Reference Court and argued that the belting system has been rightly adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector because the land abutting the road falls in a different category and higher compensation awarded for such land is justified. He argued that there is no possibility of substantial development in future because the land is situated near the border of Pakistan. He further submitted that the distance of 20 karams adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector for the purpose of carving out blocks and ap- plying the belting system, which has been upheld by the Reference Court as well as the learned Single Judge, is just and proper and there is no justification to extend the limit of the land failing in the first block. The learned Advocate General also justified the difference in the amount of compensation awarded for the land falling within 20 karams on the one hand and the rest of the land on the other hand by arguing that the value of the land failing in the first category is substantially more than the land failing in the second category. He relied on the decisions of the. Supreme Court in Khanna Improvement Trust Vs. Land Acquisition Tribunal and Others, ; Ludhiana Improvement Trust v. Brijeshwar Singh and Anr. 1996 L.A.C.C. 381 and Union of India and others etc. Vs. Mangatu Ram, etc., .

Before we consider the respective submissions urged by the learned counsel it is necessary to emphasise that the power of the Letters Patent Bench to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single judge is extremely limited and normally the Appeal Bench will not interfere with the judgment of the Single Bench unless it suffers from a manifest error of law and substantial failure of justice has been occasioned. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge on an appreciation of the facts cannot be interfered by the Appeal Bench unless it is clearly shown that such finding has been recorded without considering important piece of evidence or it is based on no evidence. The mere possibility of Appeal Bench forming a different opinion on a re-evaluation and re-appreciation of evidence available on record, a possibility which always exists in a system of hierarchy of Courts and which can be explored in each and every case is not a ground on which the judgment under appeal can be set aside. Even on the question of law, the Appeal Bench will be extremely loath to interfere with the views expressed by the Single Bench if that view is plausible and is supported by other judicial precedents.

We are also of the opinion that in cases like these ones in which the learned Single Judge has, by recording detailed reasons, confirmed the findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court, the scope of interference is extremely limited and the Appeal Bench will not readily interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge on the issues like situation of land, its potential value for development and the belting system adopted for award of compensation.

Having said all this, we shall now consider whether the impugned judgment suffers from an error of law warranting interference in these appeals and whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation at a uniform rate. Perusal of the record shows that after making detailed reference to the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed 6 issues including the one about the market value of the acquired land. He then outlined the legal principles which govern the determination of the market value in acquisition cases. The learned Reference Court referred to the evidence of Virsa Singh-AW17, Avtar Chand-AW10, Inderjit Singh-AW16, Baldev Singh-AW17, Ganga Ram-AW18 and Mohinder Singh-RW1 and then observed:

"It is an admitted fact that there is no separate HADBAST of Amarkot and this Amarkot happens to be a place located at the crossing of the two roads already mentioned. If we consider the statement of Avtar Chand and of the Patwari, Mohinder Singh, then the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that Shri Inderjit Singh (AW16), Shri Balwinder Singh (AW17) and Shri Ganga Ram (AW18) have given an exaggerated account regarding the nature of the abadi and the number of shops located at this place. They are interested persons and they naturally have a positive interest in exaggerating these things. From the nature of evidence, it can only be said that there are about 40/50 or somewhat more shops at Amarkot. The persons who are running the shops must also be residing there and there is, as such, certainly some abadi. Some villages happen to be located near this place and it is natural that the residents of those villages must be coming to this place for making purchases in respect of day to day needs. It is not disputed that the place is situated quite near the border and this being the position, the same cannot have any extra- ordinary potential of development. Some development can take place and in fact, it appears it has been taking place only on account of government patronage."

The learned Additional District Judge also referred to the report of Patwari Virsa Singh and held :

"It will be seen that there is abadi of Amarkot only on the two sides of the road which goes from Valtoha to Rajke. On one side of the road which goes from Amritsar to Khem Karan, there is practically no abadi and there happens to be located a petrol pump on one side of this road and some site appears to have been purchased for the purpose of some Mandir. These places have been clearly shown in this plan. What needs specific notice is that on the two sides of the road going from Amritsar to Khem Karan, there is hardly any abadi excepting a little one in the crossing of the two roads. From all this, it will appear that the acquired land which happens to be located on Amritsar-Khem Karan road, did not have any extraordinary potential of development. The same possibly could not be utilised for the purpose of any residences or the shops excepting only a small belt along the Khem Karan-Amritsar road. The principle of belting which can be employed in the present case appears to be reasonable and having regard to the entire location of the site, which has been acquired, I hold that only a small strip along the road could have some special potential for development but the entire other land, which has been acquired, could be put to agricultural use only, for a number of years hence and there could be no immediate prospect of its development in the form of any houses, the shops or any Industry. I further hold that even the belt along the Amritsar-Khem Karan wad would not have had much importance but for the acquisition in the present case, as this belt happens to be proceeding further and further away from the originally inhabited Chowk"

After analysing the evidence produced by the parties about the situation of the land, the possibility of future development as well as the evidence produced in the form of sale-deeds, the learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land falling within 20 karams belt at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre and for the remaining land at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. While doing so, he took notice of the report of the Sub Divisional Officer but declined to make it the basis for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre qua the land falling beyond 20 karams. The plea of the claimants that the difference between the land falling within 20 karams belt and the remaining land was unreasonable was rejected by the Reference Court by assigning the following reasons :

"The learned counsel, Shri Sharma, on behalf of the claimants, submits that there is a big difference between the price of the land within the 20 Karams belt and the land beyond and some more value should have been awarded for the remaining land. I have considered this submission but I do not feel impressed. There ought to be some reasonable material to base a finding that the land beyond this belt could possibly be used for some other beneficial purpose of the same sort of intrinsic potential. Having regard to the nature of the area where the site is located, such a land could not be in demand. It appears that on account of Government patronage, all this development is being done. But for this, this land could hardly have any significant value as the area is located near the border. It is an admitted fact that this entire land, which has been acquired, is meant for the purpose of agriculture. The claimants have not brought record of any sale transaction which may show that the value of the agricultural land could be more than Rs. 20,000/- per acre. A number of mutations in respect of the various transactions have been proved on record by the respondents (Ex.R.2 to R.10). The plan Ex.R.l has also been prepared in this respect. The various lands which were the subject matter of these mutations have been shown in the plan Ex.R.l. The nearest land which was sold is the subject matter of mutation No. 6336. This sale transaction is of 30.6.1980. It was only a few months before the present acquisition. The land sold was 8 killas. It was sold for Rs. 10,000/-. The distance of this land from the acquired land is given as only 600 karams. There are other lands situated beyond and the same were sold for lesser price. I, however, do not consider it proper to take into account the other mutations, as they are much beyond the acquired land. In my view, the land which was sold out of Rect. No. 94 and which is the subject matter of mutation No. 6336, Ex. R.10 could provide some reasonable basis for the price of the land which has been acquired. Even if some allowance is given for the acquired land being near the roads, some reasonable increase could be added but in no circumstances, the value of such agricultural lands could be Rs. 20,000/- per acre, at which the compensation has been awarded. I am of the view that the claimants have already received much higher price for the belt beyond 20 karams from the road to which they were entitled. Such a land could not possibly be sold in the ordinary course at such a price of Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Thus, I feel that the claimants have already been benefited to a considerable degree by the nature of the award which has been given."

The learned Single Judge noticed the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants that the land has potential for development and uniform rate of market price should have been fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court. His Lordship also made reference to the sale instances, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and then held :

"Land covered by all these instances abut on the road leading from Amritsar to Khem Karan and were sold for purposes of raising shops or buildings along the road. Amar Kot is admittedly far away from the acquired land and the special feature of the junction where the acquired land is situated is that along the road some shops or houses have come up to cater for persons getting down or passing through this junction. Otherwise, there is no potential for urbanisation. All constructions or the aforesaid sale transactions are in regard to land abutting the road. There is no building activity on the back side as usually is the position whenever urban area is coming up. The biggest sale transaction is in regard to two kanals which would mean 1000 square yard or 9000 square feet. 9000 square feet can have a plot 100'' x 90''. The killas shown on the plans are rectangular and the dimension is generally 40 yds. x 30 yds. i.e. 120'' x 108''. 20 karams is about 110''. Hence the Court below was right in making belt of 20 Karams deep along the road. . . .

Adverting to the market price of the belt of 20 Karams the Court below has awarded price to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 76,000/- per acre and to the others who had purchased part of the acquired land at the purchase price. It shows that these sales were genuine and I see no reason why all the claimants for land abutting on the Amritsar-Khem Karan road, should not be allowed uniform price. The learned Advocate General could not show why this course should not be followed......

Adverting the price beyond 20 Karams from the road, the Sub Divisional Officer vide report Ex.P.W.161 had reported that market price should be paid at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre, it has to be seen on the facts of the case whether it is fair or not. The claimants had brought another instance A9 the details of which are as follows:

A.9 18.3.1981, 8 Kanals 1 Maria 70,000/- 70,000/- per acre opposite to acquired land on the other side of the road.

The land is situated just opposite middle of the acquired land on the other side of the Amritsar-Khem Karan road abutting that road. This sale is of course about 6 months after the acquisition but since large area was sold i.e. four times more than instances A5 and A6, the price fetched was lesser for two reasons, one bigger area, two, the first strip of 20 Karams abutting the road along with land on its back. This sale even beyond five months of the notification shows that while the first belt may have higher value of Rs. 96,000/- per acre or so at that time, the back portion had lesser value. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the claimants that for the entire land uniform market price should be allowed. This is the additional reason why belting is necessary on the facts of this case."

In our opinion, the concurrent findings recorded by the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge about the nature of land, its situation near the border and the minimal development which has taken place with the support of the governmental agencies do not suffer from any patent illegality warranting interference in these appeals.

The argument of the learned counsel that the belting system should not have been adopted and compensation should have been awarded at a uniform rate is without substance because the appellants did not produce any evidence to prove that the entire chunk of land acquired by the government had the same physical attributes. As a matter of fact, the evidence produced by the respondents clearly brought out the distinctive features of the land abutting the crossing of Khem Karan-Amritsar and Valtoha-Amritsar roads as well as the land abutting the main road on the one hand and the remaining land on the other hand. We, therefore, do not find any justification to quash the belting system adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector which has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge as well as the learned Single Judge.

In Ludhiana Improvement Trust case (supra), a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court reversed the judgment of this Court by which it had set aside the belting system adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector, Their Lordships of the Apex Court upheld the belting system and observed:

"It is settled by decisions of this Court that belting is a fair principle to determine just and adequate compensation lest unjust award would ensue. When large extent of land is acquired, land abutting the roads or developed area and interior land do not command the same market value."

Likewise, in Union of India and others (supra), the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court granting uniform rate of compensation to the landowners and held :

"When a large extent of land under acquisition comprises lands-of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate of market value. Necessarily, reasonable demarcation classification should be made before determination of the compensation. Lands abutting the National Highway would necessarily be granted a higher market value than the lands situated in the interior."

In Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others Vs. Balwant Singh and Others, , their Lordships reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court directing the payment of compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for the entire area and held that the belting system adopted by the learned Single Judge was correct. Likewise, in Tarlochan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1995)110 P.L.R. 100, award of compensation by adopting the belting system in respect of the land acquired for plan development of municipality was upheld.

In Meharban and others etc. etc. Vs. State of U.P. and others, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court directed the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 175/- per square yard in respect of land situated in Quasimpur Nagia Tashi by observing that it was situated near the fast growing industrial city of Meerut and in respect of other city, namely, Mubarkpur Pehlara, the compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs. 85/- per square yard.

In Sadhu Singh v. State of Haryana 1991(1) LACC 359, the Division Bench upheld the belting system but enhanced compensation payable in respect of the land situated in interior. The facts of that case show that the land measuring 324 kanals 8 marlas was acquired for establishing of Grain Market, Staff Quarters, Shed and Farmers Rest House by Market Committee, Barara, District Ambala. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 2,500/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 500/- per marla. In the Regular First Appeal, the learned Single Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per marla in respect of land upto the depth of 18 feet from Adhoya Road and for rest of the land, at the rate of Rs. 330/- per marla. The Division Bench rejected the argument of the appellant that the belting system could not be adopted and held :

"It was urged that the learned Judge erred in adopting the belting system. In other words, according to learned counsel compensation with respect to the entire land should have been fixed at the same rate. The said argument is of no avail because though no hard and fast rule can be prescribed and the compensation has to be fixed on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the individual cases. Without multiplying the precedents, reference to some of the recent decisions can well be made wherein the belting system of fixing the market value has been approved. In Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1995 L.A.C.C. 297 had dealt with the similar situation. The Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market price upto a belting of a particular width and for rest of the land it was determined at a lesser price. The Supreme Court held that this method of fixing the market price is to be approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Ludhiana Improvement Trust (supra). The Supreme Court was concerned with the acquisition of land under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. In paragraph 4, it was held :

"The High Court in the impugned order relying on its earlier judgment held that the belting system adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer and the reference Court is not correct in law. It is settled by decisions of this Court lest unjust award would ensue. When large extent of land is acquired,land abutting the roads or developed area and interior land do not command the same market value. When it is proved that the lands are situated in low-lying area, obviously the lands situated at level led area would command higher market rate than the lands situated in low-lying area."

Keeping in view the aforesaid, the said argument of the learned counsel must fail. We, therefore, must revert back to the facts of the case." However, it enhanced the compensation in respect of land situated beyond the depth of 18 feet from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 600/- per marla.

The adoption of belting system has also been upheld in the following recent decisions of this Court -

(1) Jai Pal Singh v. State of Haryana 1996(12) L.A.C.C. 97 ;

(2) Bhalla Ram alias Bh:;la Ram v. State of Haryana 1996(12) L.A.C.C. 423 ;

(3) Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana, L.P.A. No. 670 of 1985 decided on 30.5.1997, and

(4) Gurbax Singh v. State of Punjab17 1998(3) R.R.R. 616 .

In the latest decision, the Court upheld the division of land in three blocks for award of separate market value and held that the lands abutting main road are to be assessed at higher rate than other lands which are away from the main road.

Now a few words about the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In Gulzar Singh (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the belting system adopted by the learned Single Judge. The facts of that case show that the land measuring 89 acres 4 kanals and 12 marlas situated in Dhuri village was acquired for New Mandi Township. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the Sand into 6 blocks and awarded market value ranging between Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per acre. The Reference Court disagreed with the classification and found that all lands are possessed of the same quality. He awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per biswa in respect of the land abutting abadi and Rs. 800/- per biswa in respect of the remaining land. The learned Single Judge before whom cross appeals were filed by the State and the claimants worked out the average price to be Rs. 750/- per biswa but awarded market rate at the rate of Rs. 500/- per biswa in respect of land which was more than 100 feet away from the main road. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the evidence and held :

"The question then is whether the reduction of the market value by the learned Single Judge is warranted on facts and under law. In his judgment the learned Judge found that the acquired lands are situated between railway line on the one side and link road going from Dhuri to Sarona on the other side. On the third side, it is surrounded by the inhabited area of Dhuri town. A small portion in khasra No. 2585 was abutting the Dhola road and the rest of the acquired land is just behind the inhabited area. While acquiring these lands the Govt. have excluded the built up area. He also found that there is tendency" of extension of Abadi village towards acquired lands. Therefore, he found that the lands are possessed of

"potential value for being housed for urban purpose in the near future and, therefore, has to be valued as such."

Thus we have the evidence that the lands are possessed of potential value for being used for building purposes. In fact, the acquisition itself is for construction of Mandi Township. The principle of belting is perfectly legal and unexceptionable as the lands abutting the main road upto a specified depth, depending on factual material on record, would fetch higher market rate than the lands situated in interior area. However, on facts of this case the belting is not warranted for the reason thaf as seen on the sides there exist roads and abutting the village. As per the plan as found by the High Court there exists a road cutting across the acquired lands. Therefore, there is not only access on three sides hut also to interior lands. Thus in our view belting and fixation of differential rates of value is not justified.

A careful reading of this judgment shows that their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the belting system but in the peculiar facts of that case, namely, the potential for urbanisation of the land and the existence of roads on 3 sides as well as on the interior of the land held that the adoption of belting system was not justified.

In Smt. Vidya Suri (supra), the learned Single Judge held that where the land situated within the municipal limits was acquired for development scheme, the belting system cannot be adopted keeping in view the fact that the entire land had developed potential value. In that case, the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the entire land could be developed for residential purposes. It also found that one end of the land acquired was along the Jalandhar-Nurmahal metalled road and on the other end are the colonies known as ''New Jawahar Nagar'' and ''Mota Singh Nagar''. In the face of these findings, the learned Single Judge observed that the belting system cannot be adopted.

The facts found in State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh (supra) show that the acquired land was encircled by 3 roads. It has poultry farm, godowns, rice shellers and residential colony in the vicinity. The learned Single Judge took notice of these facts and held that the belting system was not justified. In Chander Parkash v. State of Haryana (1994)107 P.L.R. 353, the Division Bench frowned upon the belting system and observed that where the entire land has been acquired for the purpose of extending the existing Cantonment, there was no justification to apply the block system particularly when the land had potential of growing into an industrial belt.

On a careful analysis of the various judicial precedents, referred to above, we find that the adoption of belting system for award of compensation has received unequivocal approval of the Apex Court but in Gulzara Singh''s case (supra); Jaswant Singh''s case (supra); Smt. Vidya Suri''s case (supra) and Chander Parkash''s case (supra) the Apex Court, the Division Bench and the two learned Single Judges of this Court awarded uniform market value on the peculiar facts of those cases.

In the cases in hand, the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court and the learned Single Judge have adopted rational method for dividing the land into two blocks and awarded compensation after a threadbare analysis of evidence produced by the parties. The very fact that a portion of the land is situated near the main road and the crossing of Khem Karan-Amritsar and Vol toha-Amritsar road sufficiently justifies the adoption of belting system and award of higher compensation in respect of land upto the depth of 105 feet. We, there fore, do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The argument of Shri Battas that the distance of 20 karams fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector for award of higher compensation is unreasonable and unjustified deserves to be rejected in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Khanna Improvement Trust (supra) in which belting made by the Tribunal upto the depth of 43 feet was restored and the judgment of this Court increasing the belting to 50 feet was set aside. In Sadhu Singh''s case (supra), the Division Bench has approved the belting adopted by the learned Single Judge by awarding higher compensation in respect of land upto a depth of 18 feet. Thus, there is no valid ground to hold that the first block should have been more than 20 karams of land.

The appellants'' claim for award of higher compensation cannot be accepted because the learned Single Judge has, after a thorough evaluation of the evidence, fixed the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 96,000/- per acre in respect of the land situated within 20 karams from the road and Rs. 30,000/- per acre in respect of the remaining land. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed.