Sewa Singh and Another vs State of Punjab and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—The appellant-claimants, having met with partial success in enhancement of compensation with regard to the acquired land, both before the District Judge and the learned single Judge, in the present appeals filed by them under Clause X of the Letters Patent, crave further increase in the market value and consequential payment of more compensation.

In all these appeals bearing Nos. 182 to 205 of 1992 as common questions of law and fact are involved we propose to dispose of these matters by common order.

Brief facts of the case reveal that the Government, vide notification dated May 22, 1981 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act''), intended to acquire land in village Sher Majra at public expense for a public purpose, namely for construction of Patiala bye-pass road. Follow-up declaration u/s 6 of the Act came to be issued in due course of time. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated September 22, 1986 determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The claimants, being not satisfied, made reference u/s 18 of the Act and the learned District Judge, vide his judgment dated August 8, 1988, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 80,000/- per acre. The claimants were also held entitled to other benefits available under the amended provisions of the Act. They were, however, not held entitled to any compensation with regard to severance of their land and super-structure. Having not met with complete success. In tune with the demand made by them in their reference application u/s 18 of the Act, the claimants filed Regular First Appeals in this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court, vide judgment dated May 25, 1990 determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. The claimants were further held entitled to Rs. 5000/- per acre for severance of their land under clause ''thirdly'' of Section 23 of the Act, even though on this claim they were not held entitled to other statutory benefits, like, interest etc. In the present appeals, preferred on behalf of the claimants, obviously, prayer is to further enhance the compensation, payable to them and to accordingly modify the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge.

Before we might proceed to comment on the contentions raised by learned counsel for the claimants, it will be relevant to mention here that whereas land in question pertains to village Sher Majra, the claimants relied upon quite a few sale instances from village Kheri Gujran. Learned single Judge on the basis of award, Ex. P. 40 held that "Kheri Gujran was adjacent to Patiala town and Sher Majra was adjacent to Kheri Gujran. In other words, while going from Patiala to Sangrur, Kheri Gujran comes first and Sher Majra comes thereafter." Learned single Judge further held that "it could well be presumed that within a period of four years, the potentialities of land, situated in Sher Majra, must have improved and might have acquired the same potentialities or little less potentialities which Kheri Gujran had at the time of acquisition in the year 1977, as the acquisition in the year 1977 took place for defence purposes. In view thereof, the claimants can certainly contend with success that sale instances from Sher Majra and Kheri Gujran should be considered by this Court for determining the market, value of the acquired land covered by the present notification."

The claimants, for determination of market value of the land under acquisition, relied upon sale instances Ex. P2 to P. 12 tabulated below :--

SR No.

Ex No.

Date of Sale

Area Sold

Price Paid in Rs.

Revenue limits

Price per acre

1.

P-2

4-8-81

75 Sq. yards

1500/-

Sher Majra

96000/-

2.

P-3

19-1-81

500 Sq. yards

30000/-

Kheri Gujran

290400/-

3.

P-4

30-11-81

250 Sq. yards

7000/-

Sher Majra

135520/-

4.

P-5

13-7-82

1 bigha

20000/-

Kheri Gujran

96000/-

5.

P-6

29-6-82

1-13 Bis was

33000/-

Kheri Gujran

96800/-

6.

P-7

13-7-82

1-7 Biswas

27000/-

Kheri Gujran

96800/-

7.

P-8

3-6-81

18 Biswas

27000/-

Kheri Gujran

144000/-

8.

P-9

18-8-80

10 Biswas

15000/-

Kheri Gujran

140000/-

9.

P-10

24-11.80

464 Sq. yards

28000/-

Kheri Gujran

292000/-

10.

P-11

25-5-81

6 Biswas

9000/-

Kheri Gujran

145000/-

11.

P-12

27-7-81

445 Sq. yards

28000/-

Kheri Gujran

204529-33

Sale instances, referred to above would reveal that whereas sale instances Ex. P3, P9 and P10 pertained to a period prior to notification u/s 4, the other sale instances are of the period thereafter, Further, all Instances, but for Ex. P2 and P4 pertain to village Kheri Gujran. The sale instances, Ex. P-2, and P4 only are from village Sher Majra but both these sale instances are after the period notification u/s 4 came to be issued.

Learned single Judge, on the basis of the findings, quoted above, held that "the transactions pertaining to sale of lands in village Sher Majra can be taken into consideration, may be, they are post dated transactions." However, insofar as post dated sale transactions, pertaining to village Kheri Gujran, are concerned, the same were ruled out for determining the marker value of the acquired land. That being the situation, reliance was placed only on sale instances, Ex. P2, P3, P5 and P10 and taking the average of these sale instances, average price per acre was worked out to Rs. 1,90,784/. After doing so, learned single Judge applied a cut of 45% and accordingly determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. A cut of 30% was applied in view of smallness of size of the sale instances and yet another cut of 15% was applied in view of the fact that the two sale instances pertaining to village Sher Majra were post dated ones, i.e., came into being after the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act in this case.

Time is now ripe to evaluate the contentions raised by counsel representing the claimants in their endeavour to fix the market value of the acquired land commensurate to the one claimed by them in their references u/s 18 of the Act. The two fold contention raised before us is that there was no Justification for applying two cuts, i.e. 30% for the reason that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were of small size and 15% for the reason that sale transactions that came into being after the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act, were also considered and that a cut of 45% in any case is excessive.

We have given our anxious thoughts to the contentions of the learned counsel but, in the facts and circumstance''s of this case, find no substance in either of the contentions, noted above. It may be recalled that the learned single Judge returned a firm finding of fact that Kheri Gujran was adjacent to Patiala town and Sher Majra was adjacent to Kheri Gujran. In other words, if one is to go to Sangrur from Patiala, Kheri Gujran would come first and Sher Majra would come thereafter. The sale instances of Kheri Gujran, which is in close vicinity of Patiala, as mentioned above, have been relied upon by the learned single Judge, Patiala is an important town in the State of Punjab and land near to the said town is certainly more valuable than the one that may be further from the same. It may be true that the two villages, Kheri Gujran and Sher Majra, are adjacent to each other but the fact remains that the village of claimants, where their land so notified u/s 4 of the Act is situated, is further from Patiala than village Kheri Gujran. Further, sale instance, Ex. P11 which pertains to Kheri Gujran, is a post dated sale instance. The facts aforesaid would, thus, demonstrate that both the sale instances from village Sher Majra. that have been relied upon by the learned single Judge, are post dated sale instances and other sale instances relied upon are from Kheri Gujran, i.e. sale instances, Exs. P3, P9 and P10, no doubt are before the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act but the same pertain to village Kheri Gujran. These sale instances, Ex. P2 to P4, P9 and P10 have been held comparable with the land under acquisition and then a cut of 45% in the manner referred to above, has been applied. The said sale instances could be relied upon only if a sizeable cut was to be imposed. It is by that method alone that even though the said sale instances pertain to a different village or from the same village but post dated sale instances, that just and proper market value of the acquired land could be worked out. The disadvantage of the sale instances, relied upon by the learned single Judge, or for that matter strict non-comparability of the sale instances with the acquired land, was to be set off by slashing the average price represented by the said sale instances by atleast 45% as has ultimately been done by the learned single Judge. We do not wish to go into the question as to whether two separate cut, one for the reason that the sale instances relied upon were of small size and the other for the reason that the same are post dated sale instances, were impermissible under law as even if it is to be so assumed, the net result, i.e. slashing price from the sale instances, referred to above by 45%, was just and proper in this case. In view of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by us, second contention of the learned counsel for the claimants, as noted above, has necessarily to fail.

Even though the contentions of the learned counsel as noted above, with regard to grant of further compensation, have met with no success, the one with regard to non-grant of statutory benefits on compensation assessed for severance of land under clause thirdly of Section 23, has some substance and deserves to he partly allowed. It may be recalled that even though the reference Court had not allowed any compensation to the claimants on account of severance of their land, learned single Judge allowed Rs. 5000/- per acre for the same. The claimants were, however, not allowed statutory benefits as admissible to them under the provisions of the Act. As would be clear from the provisions contained In Section 23 of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded of land so acquired, the Court has to take into consideration all factors, as enumerated in the said Section. Whereas, first clause of Section 23 deals with the market value of land at the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1), the second clause deals with 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. The third clause deals with damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of the Collector''s taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land. Fourth clause deals with damage, if any, sustained by the person interested, at the time of Collector''s taking possession of land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, moveable or immovable, in any other manner, whereas fifth clause deals with grant of compensation for loss of business and clause sixth deals with damages resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of publication of declaration u/s 6 and the time of Collector''s taking possession of the land. Market value of the acquired land at the date of notification u/s 4 of the Act is, thus, not the only item which is payable to a person whose land has been acquired. It is the sum payable on all factors, as enumerated in Clauses 1 to 6 of Section 23 that determine the compensation payable to a claimant. However, a claimant is entitled to the benefits provided u/s 23(1-A) only on market value of the land, i.e., the compensation assessed under Clause (1) of Section 23 of the Act. The same is also true with regard to Sub-section (2) of Section 23. But insofar as Section 28 is concerned, the benefit under the said section has to be on the compensation. Section 28 of the act reads thus :--

"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation :-- If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court.

Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry."

It is clear from reading of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) as also Section 28 of the Act that the additional benefits are available on market value of the acquired land under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) whereas the same is available to the entire compensation, i.e., the sum payable on all six clauses of Section 23 of the Act. Once the claimants are held entitled to compensation on account of severance, it has to be held that the Collector ought to have awarded the said compensation in excess of the sum which was granted by him while giving the award. The claimants are, thus, held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date on which possession was taken for a period of one year and @ 15% thereafter till the same is paid.

In view of discussion made above, these appeals are partly allowed i.e. that the claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as admissible to them u/s 28 of the Act and has have been fully detailed above. To this extent, thus, the judgment of the learned single Judge is modified.