Surjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The only point which has been raised in this appeal and in support of which arguments have been advanced by Shri

Rajneesh Narula, counsel for the appellant is whether the learned District Judge, Ropar and the learned Single Judge have erred in fixing the

market value of the structures existing on the land of the appellant which was acquired by the Government of Punjab.

The facts necessary for deciding the above-mentioned point are that the land measuring 147 Bighas and 3 Biswas of the area of village Morinda

was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 2.1.1979 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a public purpose,

namely, construction of new Mandi at Morinda. After considering the claim of the landowners, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded

compensation by dividing the acquired land in 3 blocks. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 69,120/- per acre was awarded for the land covered by

block ''A''. For the land covered by block ''B'', compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,560/- per acre was awarded and for the land covered by block

''C'' the rate of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs. 48,000/- per acre. In the reference made at the instance of the

appellant, the learned District Judge, Ropar directed the payment of compensation at flat rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre. He also directed the

payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 35,000/- in respect of the structures existing on the disputed land. The Reference Court also directed

payment of solatium and interest. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the award of compensation in respect of the structure. Therefore, she

filed RFA No. 805 of 1985. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal with costs of Rs. 1,000/- and fixed the

market value of the super-structures at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square feet and enhanced the total compensation payable in respect of super-

structures from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 58,320/-. The learned Single Judge also directed the grant of benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28

of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in the year 1984.

In support of the Letters Patent Appeal, Shri Narula argued that the impugned judgment should be set aside and higher compensation be

awarded to the appellant because the learned Single Judge has not given any cogent reason for discarding the evidence produced by the appellant.

Learned counsel submitted that the testimony of Shri Som Nath Saini (PW1) should have been accepted by them for fixing the compensation of

the structures at least at the rate of Rs. 77/- per square feet. Shri Narula further submitted that the compulsory retirement of Sh. Som Nath Saini on

the charge of corruption cannot be a ground for discarding his testimony.

After considering the argument of Shri Narula and perusing the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and the judgments of the Reference

Court as well as the learned Single Judge, we are convinced that there is no justification to make further enhancement in the compensation

awarded by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 19.2.1985 shows that after taking into consideration the evidence

produced by the parties, the learned District Judge fixed the value of the superstructures at the rate of Rs. 26/- per square feet. The relevant

portion of that judgment is extracted below :

The claimant examined Shri Som Nath Saini (PW1), a retired SDO, who inspected the structures in dispute on 1.1.1977 and prepared the

abstract of cost Ex. PI and the plan of the disputed structures Ex.P2. He prepared the estimate by applying through rates mentioned in the

Common Schedule of Rates and also allowed sanctioned premium. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that till 24.5.1984, when he

appeared as witness in this court, he had already appeared as a witness for the claimants in 150 such claim cases. It was also admitted by him that

he was compulsorily retired from service and was suspended on charge of corruption and was ultimately censured. He did not prepare any rough

note and prepared the estimate on 9.4.1982 although he had inspected the spot on 1.1.1977. Evidently, the evidence of this witness needs

thorough scrutiny and cannot be accepted at its face value. He is a witness who can be safely taken to have prepared the estimate with a bias in

favour of the claimant. Although he had prepared the estimate on the basis of Common Schedule of Rates, he allowed a deduction of 5% on

account of the work being below PWD specifications. The total estimate, prepared by him, amounted to Rs. 1,01,199.28/-.

On the other hand, the respondent-State examined Shri Joginder Paul (RW1), Building Inspector from the office of the Director Colonization

Punjab. He was an overseer who inspected the spot on 22.3.1977, whereas the relevant notification was published on 2.1.1979. He then

prepared the plan, copy Ex.R1 and the abstract of cost, copy Ex.R2. It is more than evident that the cost of construction of the structures in

dispute was to be assessed on the basis of the prevailing market rates in January 1979 and not in March, 1977. A mere look at the estimate Ex.R2

gives the impression that the estimate was prepared in a summary manner and was only a guess work. The witness divided the structures in dispute

in three categories and allowed a flat rate of Rs. 26/- per square feet for the portion marked ''A'', at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square feet for the

portion marked ''C and at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square feet for the portion marked ''B''. He did not assign any specific reason for dividing the

structures in three different categories and for applying three different rates for each category separately. He too admitted in his cross- examination

that he prepared rough notes which he did not bring with him when he appeared as a witness. The estimate was prepared by him on the basis of

the rates mentioned in the letter Ex.R3 which were applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and not Punjab. A reference to the letter Ex.R3

will further show that it was only a copy of the letter from the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer for the purposes of assessment of

rent of private buildings hired by the Government Department. In these circumstances safe reliance cannot be placed on the estimate prepared by

the witness.

A comparison of the two plans Ex.P2 and Ex.R1 shows that practically the details of the constructions were the same with a few minor

omissions of construction made in Ex.R1. Even if the rate of Rs. 26/- per square feet is applied to the total measurements of construction, the cost

of construction would come to Rs. 33,696/-. The cost of construction in January, 1979 must be more than the cost of construction in March 1977

when Shri Joginder Paul (RW1) inspected the spot and later prepared the estimate. Keeping these circumstances in view, I consider that a

compensation of Rs. 35,000/- for the structures in dispute will be reasonable and adequate and accordingly I hold that the compensation awarded

to the claimant for the structures in dispute was also inadequate and that she is entitled to the payment of a total compensation of Rs. 35,000/- on

account of the acquired structures and find this issue accordingly.

In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge also made reference to the evidence produced by the parties and enhanced the value of the

superstructures to Rs. 45/- per square feet by making the following observations :

Without going into the question whether PW-1 Som Nath Saini is worthy of reliance, one thing which can safely be relied upon from his evidence

is that the super-structures were very much in existence on the spot. He inspected the spot on 1.1.1977, whereas RW-1 Joginder Paul had

inspected the spot on 22.3.1977. Both the witnesses had given the valuation in their respective reports according to the rates prevalent in the year

1977. The notification acquiring the land in dispute along with the super-structure was issued on 2.1.1979. There is a time-lag of two years

between the costs of estimates prepared by both the witnesses. The valuation of the year 1979 has to be taken into consideration. Even if the

valuation suggested by RW-1 Joginder Paul is taken on the face value, he has valued the cost of the superstructure at Rs. 33,696/-. This figure has

been arrived at by fixing the cost of the superstructure at the rate of Rs. 26/- per sq. feet and when the aforesaid figure is divided by 26, the area

covered comes to 1296 sq. feet. RW1 Joginder Paul being a witness of the department might have fixed the valuation at a lesser rate. Similarly the

claimant''s witness PW-1 Som Nath Saini also must have fixed the cost of the superstructure at a higher rate. Moreover, both the witnesses were

affixing the cost of the superstructure as it was prevalent in the year 1977 and as has been observed above, the reasonable increase in the cost of

the superstructure of two years has to be given. In view thereof by applying the guess-work, I hereby fix the cost of the superstructure at the rate

of Rs. 45/- per Sq. ft. Rupees 45/- per Sq. feet when multiplied by 1296 Sq. feet the cost of the superstructure comes to Rs. 58,320/-. The

claimant shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the amended provisions, namely, under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.

The learned District Judge will work out the exact amount.

In our opinion, the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to direct the grant of benefit of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act in view of

the fact that the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 31.3.1982 i.e. before the enforcement of the Land Acquisition

(Amendment) Act, 1984. It appears that the attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to the judgment of the Full Bench in State of

Punjab v. Krishan Lal 1987 91 P.L.R. 688 (F.B.) in which it has been held that the benefit of enhanced solatium etc. cannot be given in those

cases in which the award has been made before 30.4.1982. This view of the Full Bench is in tune with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., , K.S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala and Others, , Land

Acquisition Officer, Punjab Vs. Anudeep Kaur 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, and State of Bihar Vs. Ratan Lal Sahu and Others,

We are also of the view that the learned Single Judge has been extra indulgent in granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square feet in

respect of the superstructure. The learned Single Judge should have completely discarded the statement of Shri Som Nath Saini (PW1) on whose

evidence the claimant had placed reliance for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 77/-per square feet. A perusal of the statement of Shri Som

Nath Saini shows that he is said to have visited the spot and inspected the structure in dispute on 1.1.1977 but prepared the estimate on 9.4.1982

i.e. after a gap of 5 years 3 months and 8 days. In cross-examination, Shri Som Nath Saini admitted that he had appeared as a witness for

claimants in about 150 cases. He also admitted the factum of suspension on the charge of corruption, of being censured and compulsorily retired.

Shri Som Nath Saini also stated that he had kept a mental note of the inspection of the spot. These factors should have been more than sufficient to

discard the statement of Shri Som Nath Saini. However, the learned Single Judge took this statement into consideration along with the statement of

Joginder Paul, Building Inspector, who was summoned by the department, and fixed the higher rate for the superstructure without any tangible

basis. If Shri Som Nath Saini''s statement is ignored, then there remains no evidence which could justify award of compensation at the rate of Rs.

45/- per square feet to the appellant.

However, in view of the fact that no appeal has been preferred by the State, we cannot reduce the compensation awarded to the appellant in

respect of superstructure nor can we deprive the appellant of the undue advantage which she got under the order of the learned Single Judge with

reference to the provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.

In view of our conclusion that the testimony of Som Nath Saini is not worthy of reliance and there is no other evidence upon which the

appellant can fall back to sustain her plea for further enhancement of compensation, this appeal has to be dismissed.

For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay costs of Rs. 2,500 to the respondent.