State of Punjab vs Sukhminder Singh

N.K. Sodhi, J.—This order will dispose of four Regular First Appeals Nos. 898, 1292 and 1293 of 1981 and 648 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab and two Cross-objections Nos. 174/CI of 1981 and 3/CI of 1982 filed by the claimants-Land owners as all of these are directed against the similar awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda arising out of the same acquisition proceedings whereby a sum of Rs. 17/- per sq. yard has been awarded as compensation to the land owners. The State of Punjab in its appeals wants the amount to be reduced whereas the land owners who have filed the Cross-Objections claim enhancement.

By a notification dated December 12, 1974 published on January 8, 1975 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called ''the Act'') agricultural land measuring 400 acres within the revenue estate of Bhatinda was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for establishing IIIrd phase of residential urban estate, Bhatinda town. Thereafter, another notification u/s 6 of the Act was issued acquiring 341.79 acres of land for the same purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation of the acquired land at different rates as under:-

(i) Chai Nehri Rs. 12,250/- per acre; (ii) Barani/Banjar/gairmumkin Rs. 11,000/- per acre; (iii) Gairmumkin passage Rs. 6,000/- per acre. (iv) Gairmumkin Chhappar. Rs. 5,000/- per acre.

together with 15% solatium and 6% interest thereon. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, claimants filed references u/s 18 of the Act which were heard by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda who by his different awards and relying on one of his earlier decisions awarded Rs. 17/- per sq. yard for the entire land. Over hundred Regular First Appeals were filed in this Court by the land owners-claimants for enhancement of compensation. The State of Punjab also filed appeals seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded. These Regular First Appeals came up for hearing before S.S. Kang, J. in R.F.A. No. 1752 of 1980. The learned Judge by his order dated November 9, 1981 partly allowed the appeals and the cross-objections filed by the private land owners with proportionate costs and directed that the land owners be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard. Besides, they were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate 6% on the enhanced compensation upto the date of payment. The appeals filed by the State of Punjab were, however, dismissed with costs.

The State of Punjab then filed Letters Patent Appeals against the judgment of S.S. Kang, J. and the matter finally came up for hearing before a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 698 of 1982 and other connected appeals. The learned Judges of the Division Bench after going through the evidence and the instances of sale relied upon by the Additional District Judge as well as by learned Single Judge set aside the judgment under appeal and restored that of the Additional District Judge. In other words, Letters Patent Bench upheld the amount of Rs. 17/- sq. yard as compensation as awarded for the land in dispute by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. The present appeals and the Cross-Objections also arise out of the same acquisition proceedings.

It is not necessary to examine the matter in any further detail and the amount of Rs. 17/- per sq. yard as awarded by the Additional District Judge by his order under appeal has to be confirmed.

Learned State Counsel submitted that the land acquired was agricultural in nature and its value had to be determined by treating it as such but the learned Additional District Judge has instead treated the same as urban land while determining its market price. The argument is that if the land was to be treated as urban land then some deduction ranging from 20% to 33% of the amount of compensation have to be made towards development charges from the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants. He has referred to Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha and Others Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust and Others, and D.L.F. Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), . I am afraid I cannot permit the State to raise this plea for the first time before me. As is clear from the judgment under appeal, no such objection was taken by the respondents at any stage of the proceedings arising out of the present acquisition. It was not even raised when the matter was heard by S.S. Kang, J. or when the matter went up before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 698 of 1982. Most of the other claimants have already been paid the compensation at the rate fixed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda and there is no reason why the claimants in the present case should be given lesser compensation.

Learned counsel for the private land owners then contended that land owners were entitled to enhanced amount of solatium as also interest as provided by Sections 23 and 28 of the Act as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984. He, however, conceded that the matter was covered against the land owners by a decision of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., and Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Zora Singh and Others, . In view of the decision of the Apex Court, the plea of the private land owners cannot be accepted.

For the reasons recorded above, the present appeals as well as the Cross-Objections are dismissed leaving the parties to bear own costs.