State of Punjab vs Rajinder Pall (died) LRs.and another

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—This judgment shall dispose of six appeals i.e. R.F.A. Nos. 269, 438, 439, 256, 270 and 271 of 1989 as common question of law and fact arises in all these cases.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the Punjab Government vide notification dated August 2, 1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'') intended to acquire 34 kanals 3 marlas of land situated with the revenue estate of Siri Pandain in district Hoshiarpur for the public purpose, namely, for construction of the Kandi Canal. Declaration of the acquisition was issued on September, 6, 1982 under Section 6 of the Act and the same was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on September 7, 1982. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated August 30, 1983 allowed the compensation as follows :

Chahi land

Rs. 10,800/ per acre.

Barani land

Rs. 8,000/ per acre.

Gair Mumkin land

Rs. 4,000/ per acre.

Aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector the landowners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Judge. The Additional District Judge, on receiving the reference and after going through the entire evidence led by both the sides vide his judgment dated October 8, 1998 awarded compensation of the land on the following rates :

Chahi land

Rs. 21,875/ per acre.

Barani land

Rs. 17,500/ per acre.

Gair Mumkin land

Rs. 8,750/ per acre.

The claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits under the Act. It is against this judgment that the present appeals have been filed.

The short question that arises for consideration in the present case is What was the market value of the land acquired at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act ?

The landowners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre before the Reference Court. In order to substantiate their claim the following instances of sale were relied upon by the claimants :

See Table on Below

Date of sale

Exhibit of the saledeed

Area sold

Class of land

Sale consideration in Rs.

Rate per marla in Rs.

Rate per acre in Rs.

Distance from the acquired land

22.10.1982

A8

110

Barani

4000/

133/

21280/

400 Karams

22.6.1983

A9

20

Barani

10000/

250/

40000/

400 Karams

20.7.1982

A10

06

Barani

10000/

166/

26560/

11 Killas

15.6.1982

A11

07

Barani

3500/

500/

80000/

10 Killas

23.11.1979

A12

110

Barani

2000/

200/

32000/

200 Karams

18.5.1982

A13

110

Barani

4450/

450/

72000/

11 Killas

15.6.1982

A14

071/2

Barani

4000/

571/

91360/

10 Killas

14.9.1982

A15

119

Barani

5500/

136/

21760/

250 Karams

From a perusal of the above Table it is clear that sale Exhibits A8, A9 and A15 cannot be considered as they related to a period after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, we are left with sale instances of Ex.A10 dated 20.7.1982 by which 6 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 10,000/ i.e. at an average price of Rs. 26,560/ per acre; Ex.A11 by which 07 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 3,500/ i.e. at an average price of Rs. 80,000/ per acre; Ex.A13 by which 010 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 4,450/ i.e. at an average price of Rs. 72,000/ per acre and Ex.A14 by which 071/2 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 4,000/ i.e. at an average price of Rs. 91,360/ per acre. All the aforementioned sales were of Barani land. Thus, it is clear that the market price of the land by virtue of the aforementioned sale deed was much more than what has been awarded by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. Although the sale instances are of a small area but even if a cut is imposed, still the amount would work out to much more than what has been awarded by the Reference Court. By no stretch of calculation can the market value of the acquired land be determined below the amount what has been awarded by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The State has led no cogent evidence to show that the market value of the land at the time of the acquisition was below the price which has been determined by the Court below.

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated October 8, 1968.

Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.