Tara Chand, Dalip Kumar and Others and Chandu Ram alias Chandi Ram vs The Land Acquisition Collector and Others <BR> Radha Krishan and Others Vs The Collector, Abohar and Another

Rajesh Bindal, J.—This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned nine appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that Government of Punjab vide notification dated 12.11.1991, issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act''), acquired 351 kanals and 4 marlas of land situated in village Azimgarh (Abohar) for the purpose of construction of New Water Works. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The land owners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned court below dismissed the reference petitions.

Learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below had failed to appreciate the evidence led by them on record in the form of sale deeds (Ex. A7, Ex. A8, Ex. A11, Ex. A15 and Ex. 17), which were registered prior to the acquisition of land. The land forming part thereof was also of the revenue estate of Village Azimgarh to which the acquired land also pertained. The land in question was located just one kilometer away from the municipal boundaries of the city of Abohar. The area in the vicinity was developing at a fast pace. Abohar bye-pass was located quite close to the acquired land. The reasoning adopted by the learned court below, while rejecting sale deed (Ex. A7) cannot be sustained, wherein it has been opined that the same was registered more than one year prior to the date of acquisition. Sale deeds (Ex. A8, Ex. A11, Ex. A1 5 and Ex. A17) were ignored considering these to be of small plots. The submission is that both the reasons adopted by the learned court below for rejecting the evidence led by the land owners cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. At the most, a reasonable cut could be applied for determining fair value of the acquired land while considering the sale transactions of small plots. The submission is that factories, cinema, schools, colleges and other commercial establishments were located at a distance of about one kilometer from the acquired land and other residential, commercial and educational establishments were about two kilometers therefrom. The land in question was acquired for construction of New Water Works for supply of water in Abohar city. It was further submitted that one year after the acquisition of land in question, another chunk of land was acquired pertaining to the same revenue estate and the Collector himself had awarded compensation therefore at the rate of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre, whereas in the present acquisition, the award was merely Rs. 50,000/- per acre.

No one has appeared for the respondents.

Heard learned Counsel for the land owners and perused the relevant referred record.

As far as location of the land is concerned, it is an admitted fact on record, as is noticed by the learned court below in paragraph 4 of the impugned award, that the same is located at a distance of about one to two kilometers from the factories, cinema, schools, colleges and other commercial establishments. It is located on Abohar-Hanumangarh road. Though in site plan (Ex. 21), it is shown that the same is close to Abohar bye-pass, but as to when the bye-pass was constructed, neither any material has been referred to at the time of hearing nor exact distance from bye-pass is evident.

Now coming to the relevance of the evidence led by the land owners. No site plan was referred to at the time of arguments to show the location of the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. A7, Ex. A8, Ex. A11, Ex. A15 and Ex. A17). Similar is the position pertaining to the award for acquisition of land carried out about one year after the present acquisition. All what was sought to be argued is that the land forming part of the sale deeds and also the award was of the revenue estate of village Azimgarh to which the land in question also belonged. A perusal of the site plan (Ex. P21) shows that abadi of village Azimgarh is towards the city of Abohar, if we move from the acquired land towards the city. Meaning thereby, it was either forming part of the municipal limits or was close to that as nothing has been pointed out on record to show to what extent were the municipal limits of Abohar. The acquired land formed Hadbast No. 109, whereas the award of subsequent acquisition, which is sought to be relied upon, is forming part of Hadbast No. 121. There is nothing on record to point out as to how much area is there in one Hadbast number. However, still the fact remains that a big chunk of land measuring 7 kanals and 8 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- vide sale deed (Ex. A7) which was registered on 26.12.1989. Even this land is located towards the city, though it is forming part of the revenue estate of village Azimgarh only, the abadi of which is located towards the city in case we move from the acquired land and also considering the location of the land, which is stated to be about one kilometer away from the municipal limits and there was development activity towards this area of the city, in my opinion, in the present case, by applying a guess work, the value of the acquired land, as has been assessed by the Collector and upheld by the learned court below, certainly deserves some increase and the same is determined at Rs. 60,000/- per acre instead of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act.

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.