State of Punjab and Another vs Rikhi Ram

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 2831 to 2839 of 1993 and cross objections No. 11-CI to 19-CI of 2013, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The State is in appeal impugning the award of the court below assessing compensation on account of acquisition of land seeking reduction thereof. The landowners filed cross objections seeking further enhancement.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.3.1987, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ''the Act''), the State of Punjab sought to acquire the land, situated in village Chunni Kalan, Hadbast No. 62, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar for construction of Chunni Distributory from RD 140 to 4542 meters. The same was followed by notification dated 11.3.1987, issued u/s 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector''), vide award dated 16.11.1987, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 62,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections, which were referred to the learned court. The learned reference court determined the market value of the acquired land Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 75,000/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 55,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned by the State as well as the landowners before this court.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of Chunni Distributory. It was pertaining to different villages. He further submitted that the land pertaining to village Behlan Khanpur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was also acquired for the purpose of construction of Chunni Distributory at the same time. The Collector assessed the value of the acquired land at the same rate, as it was assessed for the land pertaining to village Chunni Kalan. This Court in RFA No. 2808 of 1992--Ajmer Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, upheld the award of the court below vide judgment dated 30.1.2009, hence, nothing survives in the appeals as the court below has already awarded the same amount of compensation.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the landowners, while not disputing the judgment of this court in Ajmer Singh''s case (supra), submitted that the land pertaining to village Mehdudan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was acquired vide notification dated 7.10.1985 for construction of SYL Canal, where the value of the land assessed by this court in RFA No. 3147 of 1992--The State of Punjab v. Chhaja Singh and another, decided on 17.2.2000, was Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 1,00,806.45 per acre for barani land and Rs. 60,483.87 per acre for banjar kind of land. The aforesaid village is also located quite close to village Chunni Kalan, hence, the compensation in the present case deserves to be enhanced, even keeping in view the time gap in two acquisitions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the State is concerned, this court in Ajmer Singh''s case (supra) has already considered the issue regarding acquisition of land pertaining to neighbouring village for the same purpose at the same time, wherein assessment of compensation by the court below was upheld. In the present set of appeals as well, the learned court below has granted same amount of compensation. The award of the Collector was also in the same line, hence, there is no merit in the appeals filed by the State and the same deserve to be dismissed considering the reasons recorded in Ajmer Singh''s case (supra). Ordered accordingly.

As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the landowners is concerned, the judgment of this Court in Chhaja Singh''s case (supra) cannot be relied upon for the reason that the acquisition therein was pertaining to the land of village Mehdudan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Though it is claimed to be located quite close to the acquired land, but there is no site plan produced on record to show the location thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land. In the absence thereof, it would not be safe to place reliance thereupon especially in the light of the judgment of this court, whereby the compensation was assessed pertaining to the acquired land of the neighbouring village for the same purpose at the same time. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit even in the cross objections filed by the landowners. Accordingly, the same are also dismissed.