AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order shall dispose of above mentioned 16 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
The land owners (except in RFA No. 946 of 2001) are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and the super-structure existing thereon.
R.F.A. No. 946 of 2001 has been filed by the State seeking reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land.
The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 836 of 2001.
Briefly, the facts are that the land measuring 629.55 acres, situated in village Sohana, District Ropar was acquired by the State Government vide notifications dated 11.11.1993, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'') for the purpose of setting up of Industrial Focal Point, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The same was followed by notification dated 19.4.1994, issued u/s 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 6,96,000/- per acre. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present appeal.
Learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence produced on record. The sale deeds produced by them have been totally ignored. In some of the appeals, learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below for the superstructures existing on the acquired land on the date of acquisition, is not just and fair, considering the amount spent by them on the construction. The evidence produced by the appellants on that account was totally ignored. It was further argued that compensation granted to the land owners on account of acquisition of superstructures @ 25% is less and they should be granted at least 50% enhancement.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has awarded just and fair compensation. As regards valuation of superstructure is concerned, he further submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the land owners should not be granted any further increase on the amount as assessed by the learned Reference Court, rather, the same deserves to be reduced. It was submitted that the learned court below has granted increase @ 25% on the value of superstructures as asessed by the Collector, which is in conformity with various judgments of this court.
As far as value of the acquired land is concerned, learned Counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the issue involved in the present appeal regarding valuation of acquired land is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2322 of 1998 - Harbachan Kaur and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, decided on 23.8.2006, whereby this court further enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
As concededly the compensation for the acquired land was further enhanced by this court, the claim made by the State in appeal filed by it seeking reduction in compensation does not survive. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed.
As far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of superstructures is concerned, it is always that some rough estimate is made by applying a thumb rule. The assessment in such cases cannot be made with mathematical precision. The fact is that the land owners always make exorbitant claims for the superstructures, whereas the State estimates the value thereof at its lowest price. In the present appeals, it is not disputed that the court below has granted increase @ 25% on the value of the super structure as a thumb rule which is in conformity with various judgments of this Court, such as RFA No. 663 of 2004 -Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Sajjan Singh, decided on 2.8.2006, RFA No. 579 of 2006; Smt. Akko Devi and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Anr., decided on 1.10.2008, RFA No. 1990 of 2002 "Bhagwan Kaur and Ors. v. The Punjab State and Anr., decided on 4.12.2008, RFA No. 727 of 2001; Narinder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 4.2.2009, RFA No. 3921 of 2007; Arunash Chander Kaushik and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.2.2009, RFA No. 3004 of 2006; Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., decided on 2.3.2009 and R.F.A. No. 2804 of 2008; Joginder Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 10.3.2010.
In view of the above, increase of 25% on the value as assessed by the learned court below for superstructure is just and fair and the same does not call for any interference.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.