State of Punjab vs Jagdev Singh and others

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

By this common order, I purpose to dispose of two connected Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. RFA 2160 and 2161 of 1985 and Cross Objections bearing Nos. 6CI of 1987 in RFA No. 2160 of 1985 and 7CI of 1987 in RFA No. 2161 of 1985 as, common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals. Whereas the State of Punjab through present appeals filed by it seeks restoration of the award given by Land Acquisition Collector and, thus, in the process setting aside the order passed by learned District Judge dated 16.5.1985 enhancing market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at Rs. 20,000/ per acre, the claimants, who have filed cross objections, seek further enhancement in the matter of compensation.

The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention reveal that the Government sought to acquire the land for Water Supply Scheme for the municipal area of Lehragaga when notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') on 23.12.1978. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at Rs. 8547/ per acre. Being dis satisfied with the wholly inadequate compensation as assessed by Land Acquisition Collector, the claimantslandowners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was contested by the appellantState. Resultant trial, however, culminated into the judgment passed by learned District Judge, dated 16.5.1985 vide which, compensation for the acquired land was enhanced at Rs. 20,000/ per acre. As mentioned above, whereas the State has filed Regular First Appeal for setting aside the order passed by learned District Judge and restoring the one passed by Land Acquisition Collector assessing the compensation at Rs. 8547/ per acre, the claimants, who have filed cross objections, seek further enhancement of the compensation.

After hearing learned counsel representing the parties and examining the records of the case, the Court finds that there is no merit either in the appeals filed by the State or in the crossobjections filed by the claimants. While enhancing the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at Rs. 20,000/ per acre, learned District Judge, referred to sale instances, Exs. P2, P3 and P5 dated 5.2.1978, 28.4.1969 and 17.1.1976, respectively. Whereas, vide sale instance, Ex. P2, 17 Kanals 7 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 37,000/ which works out at Rs. 17,056/ per acre, sale instance, Ex. P3, depicts the average price per acre at Rs. 25,224/. Insofar as, sale instance, Ex. P5, is concerned, the same depicts average sale price at Rs. 43,904/ per acre.

It has been found as a fact, on the basis of evidence that the land in the sale instance, Ex.P2, is located hardly at a distance of 3 acres from the land, subject matter of acquisition. It may be true that insofar as sale instances, Exs.P3 and P5 are concerned, there is no discussion with regard to their location but, if sale instances, Exs. P3 and P5, were to be relied upon while assessing the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, the claimants would have got much more than what has been assessed by learned District Judge. Surely, no reliance has been placed on sale instances, Exs. P3 and P5. Contention of Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, thus, that insofar as sale instances, Exs.P3 and P5 are concerned, there is no finding with regard to their location and, therefore, assessment of market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at Rs. 20,000/, is not correct, has to be repelled. As mentioned above, while working out the compensation even though reference might have been made to sale instances, Exs. P3 and P5, but no reliance has been placed thereupon. Learned District Judge has placed reliance only on Ex.P2, and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 20,000/ per acre has been assessed as market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition.

Next contention of Mr. Joshi that the State has also brought on record sale instance, Ex.R2, which shows that market value of the land almost at the same rate which was worked out by the Land Acquisition Collector and same has not been taken into consideration, also needs to be repelled. There is a firm finding of fact recorded by learned District Judge that the State had led no evidence whatsoever to show the location of the land in sale instance, Ex.R2 and its distance from the land, subject matter of acquisition.

From the facts, as culled out above, it appears that learned District Judge relied upon Ex.P2 dated 5.2.1978 vide which, an area of 17 kanals 7 marlas was sold for an amount of Rs. 37,000/, which works out at Rs. 17,056/ per acre. Inasmuch as, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.12.1978, some enhancement has been done, which appears to be absolutely justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above.

Finding no merit in the appeals filed by the State or for that matter crossobjections filed by the claimantlandowners, both are dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.

Appeals dismissed.