Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

J.S. Sekhon, J.

In pursuance of the notification published on Nov. 27, 1982 and issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) some land including the land of the appellants located in the revenue estate of village Ladhal, Tehsil and District Ropar was sought to be acquired at public expense and for public purpose i.e. for the construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. Subsequently, a notice under section 6 of the Act was also published on December 7, 1982. On measurement, the actual area was found to be 25.38 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated September 28, 1983, assessed the compensation of the acquired land as follows :

Chahi

Rs. 50,500/ per acre

Baravi

Rs. 37,900/ per acre

Banjar Jadid

Rs. 19,000/ per acre

Banjar Qadim

Rs. 18,950/ per acre

Gair Mumkin Abadi/Bara

Rs. 75,800/ per acre

Gair Mumkin Rasta

Rs. 10,000/ per acre

The Collector also awarded 15 solatium over and above this compensation

Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector, the appellants successfully sought references under section 18 of the Act in the Court of the District Judge, Ropar. The learned District Judge vide his impugned award April 25, 1985 dismissed the references by holding that the compensation of the acquired land already awarded by the Collector was adequated. He, however, allowed the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act.

Still being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of the acquired land the appellants came up in the Regular First Appeal.

Shri J.R. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned District Judge had wrongly ignored the sale transaction exhibited by P3 relating to part of the land itself by holding that it was a sham transaction. On the strength of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Puran and others, R.F.A. No. 804 of 1974, decided on May 12, 1979, he also maintained that the compensation of the Abadi land should be at least double of the Chahi land. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1982 S.C. 63, Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu etc. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram as well as in AIR 1982 S.C. 940, Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha etc v. Amritsar Improvement Trust and others, in order to pursuade the Court that the sale transactions of small pieces of land, forming part of the acquired land, itself are the safe criteria for ascertaining the value of the acquired land, Shri H.S. Bedi, learned Senior Advocate and the then Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri S.K. Sayal, Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand supported the award of the learned District Judge.

There is no dispute with the proposition that under the circumstances of a particular case even the sale transactions of small pieces of land forming, part of the acquired land provide safe or genuine basis for ascertaining its market value at the relevant time as held by the Supreme Court in Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu case (supra), as well as in Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha case (supra), but all the same, the party relying upon a particular sale transaction had to prove such sale to be genuine. In the case in hand, the sale deed Exhibit P3 was executed on October 6, 1982 whereby 2 marlas of land forming part of Khasra No. 12/2, located near village habitation was sold for Rs. 2000/ by Shri Surjit Singh, s/o Shri Narinder Singh son of Shri Waryam Singh. This land was also acquired and the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on November 27, 1982. It is noteworthy that before the issuance of the notification, the Revenue Officials or Officials of the concerned Department did survey the land in order to find it suitable for the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. Thus, this sale transaction appears to have been entered into in order to boost the sale price of the land after knowing that the land was being acquired for the construction of the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal.

The sale transactions exhibited by sale deeds Exhibits P1, P2, P4 and P6 relate to the land of village Nanakpura Katla Nihang and Hussainpur. These villages are located at a distance of 56 kilometer from village Ladhal. Thus, it cannot be said that the land subject matter of these sale deeds is comparable with the acquired land of the appellants. Similarly, the award Exhibit P7 of the Land Acquisition Collector pertaining to the acquired, land of village Thali for the construction of the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal is of no consequence because that village also falls at a distance of 6 kilometers from village Ladhal. The certified copies of mutation of village Ladhal, Exhibits R3 and R4 relied upon by the State before the lower Court are also of no consequence for ascertaining the terms and conditions of the gale deeds, in view of the Full Bench decision in 1986 RRR 228 (P&H) : AIR 1986 Punjab & Haryana 143, The State of Punjab v. Pohu and another.

The question then arises whether the value of the abadi land i.e. the land failing within the Lal Lakir of village Ladhal should be assessed at the double rate than that of the Chahi land. The Division Bench of this Court in R.F.A. No. 804 of 1974, State of Punjab v. Puran & Ors., decided May 12, 1979 had approved the award of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned District Judge; wherein the land inside the phirni was found more valuable and compensation therefor at double the rate of Barani land was allowed.

Thus, it cannot be said that the awarding of double compensation of the Abadi land than the one awarded for barani land was directly in issue in the above referred case. There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Joshi that the Abadi land is more valuable than even the chahi land, as lesser space is available for construction of houses inside Lal Lakir. Moreover, the civic facilities like paved roads and pucca drains are available into the Abadi land which are missing in the case of chahi land. Under these circumstances, the market value of the abadi land has to be assessed at double the rate to that of chahi land. In the case in hand, the learned District Judge had awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 50,530/ per acre for chahi land; while compensation for Gair Mumkin Bara was awarded at Rs. 75,800/ per acre. Thus, the compensation of Gair Mumkin Abadi/Bara land is enhanced to Rs. 1,01,061/ per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all benefits of the amended provisions of the Act, on enhanced compensation also. They, shall also be entitled to proportionate cost