State of Punjab vs Sohan Singh

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The appellate-State of Punjab has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in R.F.A. No. 906 of 1978 and Cross Objections No. 47-C-I of 1987.

Land measuring 467 acres was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 13.10.1969 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of various schemes at Anandpur Sahib. Vide his award dated 15.6.1990, Land Acquisition collector determined the market value of the total land by dividing it into three blocks i.e. A, B and C. For block-A, market value was fixed at Rs. 100/- per mafia. For block-B, it was fixed at Rs. 75/- per marla and for block-C, the market value was fixed at Rs. 35/- per marla. On a reference made u/s 18 of the Act of 1894, the learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar held that no part of the land belonging to the respondents fell in block-A and that their entire land falls in blocks B and C. On a re-appreciation of the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of block-B from Rs. 75/- per marla to Rs. 150/- per marla. Likewise, for block-C, the reference Court revised the market value from Rs. 35/- per marla to Rs. 100/- per marla. He also directed the payment of solatium at the rate of 15% for the enhanced compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation. The State of Punjab challenged the legality of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the market value fixed by the Reference Court was excessive and arbitrary. The respondents filed Cross-Objections and challenged the said judgment on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was on lower side.

By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge held that there was no justification to divide the land into different blocks. He held that the entire land should be treated as one for the purpose of award of compensation. Accordingly, he directed the appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per marlas for the entire land. The learned Single Judge also extended the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894 to the respondents. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal filed by the State and allowed the Cross Objections filed by the respondents.

Although in the appeal, the State of Punjab has challenged the award of the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 150/- per marla for the entire land, in our opinion, there is no merit in the plea of the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have given the enhanced compensation for the entire land. Keeping in view the placement of the land, which is in the vicinity of a municipality, we do not find any reason to upset the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

However, there is substantial merit in the argument of Shri Grewat that the benefit of Section 23(1-A) could not have been allowed to the respondents. In Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., ; K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, ; State of M.P. etc. Vs. Harishankar Goel and another etc., ; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bulandshahr and Others Vs. Ganga Sahai and Others, ; State of Bihar Vs. Ratan Lal Sahu and Others, and in Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal (1987) 91 P.L.R. 688 (F.B.), it has been held that he benefit of Section 23(1-A) cannot be given in those cases where the award has been announced prior to 30.4.1982. In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoorman''s case (supra) and the Full Bench judgment of this Court, we hold that the learned Single Judge has erred in extending the benefit of Section 23(1-A) to the respondents.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside to the extent of grant of benefit of Section 23(1-A) to the respondents. Rest of the judgment is upheld. Parties are left to bear their own costs.