Satya Swami and others vs The Collector, (Deputy Commissioner) Kapurthala and others

I.S. Tiwana, J.—This judgment disposes of two Regular First Appeals Nos. 144 and 1 of 1979 in which the common question raised pertains to the determination of the market value of the Appellants'' acquired land.

In pursuance of a notification published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act), on September 3, 1971, certain land of the Appellants located within the area of Phagwara Town (Hadbest No. 74) was acquired by the State Government for the construction of a residential complex and Government buildings. The Collector assessed the markt value of this land at the rate of Rs. 556/- per marla Since the Appellants did not feel satisfied with the fairness of the compensation awarded, they sought their respective references u/s 18 of the Act and as a result of the trial, the District Judge, Kapurthala, has through a common judgment directed the payment of compensation at the rate of Rs. 850/- per marla. The Appellants still not feeling satisfied with the adequacy of this compensation have preferred these appeals, They claim it at the rate of Rs. 1950- per marla.

The primary contention raised by their learned Counsel in support of the above noted claim is that the District Judge, while determining the compensation payable to them, has wrongly discarded the sale instances pertaining to Khasra No. 3278. Had it not been done they would have been paid it at a rate even higher than the one claimed by them. This appears to have merit.

It is evident from the contents of the sale deeds Exhibits AW. 4/1, AW 6/4 to AW. 6/6 and AW. 7/1 that the land covered by Khasra No. 3278 also belonged to the present claimants and it were they who had been selling certain parts of it on an average rate of Rs. 2438/- per marla. There is nothing on record to doubt the genuineness of these transactions. As a matter of fact nothing has been suggested in this regard before me or in the lower Court. What weighed with the lower Court in ruling out these transactions from consideration was that the land forming part of Khasra No. 3278 had a higher potential for being utilised as commercial area and the presently acquired land could not be equated with that. Even though this factual position appears to be correct, yet it looks difficult to reconcile with this approach of the lower Court that these transactions do not furnish any indicia for the determination of the market value of the acquired land. The mere high potential of the area covered by these transactions does not make these irrelevant for purposes of determining the market value of the acquired land. As has been pointed out above, both the pieces of land, i. e., Khasra No. 3278 and the presently acquired land, belong to the same set of owners and it was for them to utilise these to their best advantage. While ignoring the above noted transactions what the lower Court did for determining the market value of the suit land at Rs. 850/- per marla was that it relied upon certain mutation orders produced by the acquiring authorities. This could not possibly be done in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Pohu and another (1985) 87 P.L.R. 109, wherein it has been ruled that mutation orders are not per se any legal evidence of the terms and conditions of the sale of an immoveable property. In the light of this I rely upon sale transactions pertaining to Khasra No. 3278 as referred to above for determining the market value of the acquired land. As pointed out earlier, the average rate disclosed by these transactions is about Rs. 2438/- per marla and imposing a cut of about 25% on this rate on account of the better location of those areas and the extent of the areas sold, the Appellants deserve to be compensated at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per marla. Thus in order to be fair to the Appellants, I determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1800/- per marla. Besides this they would also be entitled to the additional amount, solatium and interest as envisaged by Sections 23 (2-A)(sic) 23 (2) and 28 of the Act as introduced vide Act No 68 of 1984. The net result is that on the above noted market value, i. e., Rs. 1800/-per marla, they would be paid an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum ; solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year of their dispossession and 15% per annum for the later period till the date of payment of the compensation. They would also be paid the proportionate costs of these appeals.