S. Gurdeep Singh Dhillon vs The State of Punjab

This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 1339, 1560 and 1586 of 1985 filed by Surjit Kaur, Gurdeep Singh Dhillon and Karanvir Singh respectively, land owners, for enhancement and RFA Nos. 1634 to 1638 filed by the State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab State Electricity Board, against enhancement of compensation.

Land measuring 85.30 acres situated within the revenue limits of Village Badungar was proposed to be acquired in pursuance of notification dated 18.10.1961 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short, ''the Act'') for a public purpose of construction of Staff Quarters for the employees of the Electricity Board. Notification u/s 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land was issued on 20.1.1962. The Collector determined compensation for the acquired land vide award dated 2.9.1963 in four zones as under:

Zone No. 1 Rs. 3000/- per bigha i.e. Rs. 3/per square yard.

Zone No. 2 Rs. 2500/-per bigha or Rs. 2.50 per square yard.

Zone Nos. 3 At the rate of Rs. 1250/per bigha i.e. Rs. 1.25 p per square yard.

Zone No. 4 Rs. 500/- per bigha i.e. 0.50 p per square yard.

The land owners were not satisfied with the award and preferred references u/s 18 of the Act. They made a claim for compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/-per square yard. The reference court i.e. the District Judge, Patiala decided five references by a common order being:

LR No. 64 of 1985 Amar Singh v. State

LR No. 65 of 1985 Gurdeep Singh v. State

LR No. 66 of 1985 Kishan Singh v. State

4.LR No. 67 of 1985 Sohan Lal v. State

LR No. 62 of 1985 Surjit Kaur v. State

The reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/-per square yard or Rs. 4000/-per bigha, apart from statutory solatium at the rate of 30% and interest @ 9% p.a from the date of taking over the possession of the acquired land till the deposit of the amount and at the rate of 12% per annum u/s 23(1A) of the Act. The instances relied upon on behalf of the land-owners have been compiled by the reference court in the following table:

Sr. Ex.No. Date of Nature of Area sold Revenue Extate paid per sq.yd. No. sale document Value Price

1 A/5 06/10/61 Sale deed 2B-2B Rs. 9000/- Rs. 4.30p Badungar

2 A/6 06/10/61 Mutation 2B-2B Rs. 9000/- Rs. 4.30p Badungar

3 A/7 22.12.59 Sale-deed 136 sq.yds. Rs.850/- Rs. 6.00p

4 A/8 04/10/63 -do1083 " Badungar Rs. 5940/- Rs. 5.50p

5 A/9 10/09/63 -do2022 " Badungar Rs. 9000/- Rs. 4.50p

6 A/10 21.8.82 -do21331/3" Badungar Rs. 11000/- Rs. 5.15p

7 A/12 02/11/49 Sale-deed 125sq.yds. Rs. 700/- Rs. 5.60 sq.yds. Badungar

8 A/15 21.5.62 Mutation 12B-19 Rs. 44617.50 Rs. 3.45 ps.yd. Badungar biswas

9 A/16 15.9.62 Mutation 158-18 " Rs. 51548.75p Rs. 3.55p Badungar 10 A/18 06/02/62 Mutation 5 bighas Rs. 14375/- Rs. 2.88p

Other documents which were relied upon were found to be of no relevance. The reference court analysed the instances relied upon on behalf of the claimants and found all the instances except agreements to sell dated 30.4.1963 Exhibits A2 and A3 to be of not much relevance. It was found that sale deed Ex.A5 did not give any area because the same related to a different Village Lehal. Other instances were neither of the acquired land nor of the adjoining land except Ex.A7, which related to Model Town, Patiala. Exhibits A8 to A10, A12, A15,A16 and A18 were not found to be comparable. Value of land depicted in sale deed Ex.A7 dated 22.12.1959 was Rs. 5/-per square yard and in agreements Exhibits A2 and A3, value shown was Rs. 6/-per square yard. Taking into account the fact that the plots of land involved therein were small, the court assessed the value to be Rs. 4/-per square yard for the acquired land. The transactions were otherwise found to be relevant having regard to the potential of land which was to be converted into urban property.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Neither learned Counsel for the State nor learned Counsel for the claimants could show any error in the determination of market value.

We have perused the record and we find that determination of market value by the reference court is fair and reasonable. The date of notification u/s 4 is 18.10.1961. The area acquired is 85.30 acres. The Collector awarded compensation ranging from 0.50 Paise per square yard to Rs. 3/- per square yard. The burden of proving that market value was higher was on the claimants. The evidence which they have led shows the price to be ranging from Rs. 2.88 per square yard to Rs. 6/-per square yard. Having regard to the size of plots, covered by the instances relied upon, there is no option but to hold that the fair value of the land on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act will be Rs. 4/-per square yard.

Principles for determining market value of the acquired land are well-settled. Reference may be made to judgments reported in Narayan Gajapati Raju v. Revenue Divisional Officer AIR 1939 PC 98, The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty, , Smt. Tribeni Devi and Others Vs. Collector of Ranchi, , The Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras, , Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another, , Padma Uppal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, , Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another, , Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, , Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, and Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Others, .

Crux of the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above, can be summarised thus: Market value has to be determined on the facts of each case. Market value is the value which a willing vendor expects from a willing purchaser. Bonafide transaction of land possessing similar advantages furnishes evidence of expectation of a willing vendor from a willing purchaser. Where instance relied upon relates to a small piece of land and value is to be determined for a big chunk of land, reasonable deduction will have to be made. Some amount of guess work is inevitable in determining market value.

Applying the above principles, determination of market value by the reference court at Rs. 4/- per square yard on the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act is fair and reasonable and neither calls for further enhancement nor for reduction.

The claimants will be entitled to interest and solatium as per amended provision of the Act. However, the date of award of the Collector being prior to 30.4.1982, they will not be entitled to additional compensation of 12% per annum from the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act till the date of the award of the Collector or taking of possession, whichever is earlier u/s 23(1A) of the Act, in view of law laid down by Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, .

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.