State of Punjab vs Banto and Others and Bachan Kaur and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order shall dispose of a set of above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.

The State is in appeal seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land.

The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1103 of 1992.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 4.10.1985, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), acquired land measuring 4.15 acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Kapoori, Hadbast No. 397, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the purpose of construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The same was followed by notification dated 7.10.1985, issued u/s 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, ''the Collector'') assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Sailab land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 44,400/- per acre for Sailab and Rs. 33,300/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land.

Learned Counsel for the State fairly submitted that for the acquisition carried out for the same purpose pertaining to the land of village Lachhru Khurd, the award of the learned court below determining the value of the acquired land of Gair Mumkin kind, appeal bearing RFA No. 542 of 1990 � The State of Punjab v. Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd., was dismissed by this Court on 9.2.2005. In the aforesaid case, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 33,300/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land.

In paragraph 7 of the impugned award, the learned court below has noticed that S.Y.L. Canal flows from the side of Kamalpur towards Lachhru passing through the revenue estate of village Kapoori. In the present set of appeals, besides assessing compensation for the land pertaining to village Kapoori, which is adjoining to village Lachhru at the same rate, the value of Sailab land was also determined granting increase in the same proportion, as was the value assessed by the Collector. Once the basis of determination of compensation in the present set of appeals has already been upheld by this Court in Harijan Cooperative Society Ltd.''s case (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.