Thakur Singh vs Punjab State

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The above three appeals raise a common question of fact and law and the judgment under one appeal has been pronounced while entirely relying upon the judgment in the other appeal. Thus, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these regular appeals together by a common judgment.

State of Punjab issued a notification dated 23.5.1984 for acquiring 55.75 acres of land in the revenue estate of Abohar Circle1 for construction of Abohar byepass southern alignment. This was followed by notification under Section 6 of the same date. The Land Acquisition Collector upon inviting objections and their consideration in accordance with law vide award dated 23.4.1986 awarded the following compensation depending upon the nature of the land :

(a) Nehri land Rs. 30,000/ per acre

(b) Barani land Rs. 25,000/ per acre

(c) Gair Mumkin land Rs. 18,000/ per acre

(d) Pahi, Rasta, Gair Mumkin Rs. 18,000/ per acre

The claimants felt dissatisfied from the above award and preferred references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before learned District Judge, Ferozepur. The learned District Judge after having afforded to the claimants opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims, pronounced his award dated 17.5.1988 granting to the claimants uniform rate of compensation for the acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs. 50,600/ per acre. The learned Judge granted to the claimants statutory benefits including solatium at the rate of 30% at the market value so determined.

The claimants felt dissatisfied from the award dated 17.5.1988 vide which the learned District Judge had answered three references giving rise to regular first appeals in Baldev Raj case (RFA No. 1934 of 1990); 38 reference were answered vide judgment dated 19.9.1989 giving rise to 31 appeals by the claimants in Thakur Singh''s case (RFA No. 201 of 1990) and 15 reference were answered vide judgment dated 27.8.1990 giving rise to 10 appeals by claimants in Balbir Kaur''s case (RFA No. 2723 of 1990). Vide all the three judgments the learned Judge concerned had awarded same amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 50,600/ per acre to the claimants.

As is clear from the above facts, the first judgment pronounced is the award dated 17.5.1988. In this case claimants had produced two witnesses and three saledeeds Ex. A.1 to A.3 on record. They also relied upon award Ex. A.4. Respondents have produced only one witness RW 1 Dharamvir Kanungo, tendered in evidence Ex. R.2 to R.6 and proved on record site plan Ex. R.1. Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.3 and Ex. R.2 to Ex. R.6 are the sale instances which have not been proved in accordance with law as neither the vendor/vendee nor any other witness was examined to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the sale instances. Thus, in accordance with the law settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600, and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625, these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration.

The only relevant and material piece of evidence before the learned Judge was Ex. A.4. Ex. A.4 is the copy of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 24.1.1986 vide which the Court has awarded Rs. 46,000/ per acre to the claimants for acquisition of their land in Abohar itself for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.12.1981. The learned Judge gave 10% increase to the claimants and awarded the compensation of Rs. 50,600/. While pronouncing the award in Thakur Singh''s case on 19.9.1989 the learned Judge had mainly relied upon the judgment of the Court in Baldev Raj''s case (supra) and had granted the same compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,600/ per acre. Thereafter both the aforestated judgments i.e. Baldev Raj and Thakur Singh''s case were relied upon by the learned Judge while passing award in relation to acquisition of land in Alamgarh where 36.27 acres of land was acquired vide same notification dated 23.5.1984 and again granted the same compensation while relying upon Ex. AW 1/A for an amount of Rs. 50,600/.

The location of the land acquired in these three different pockets for the same purpose namely, development and construction of Abohar Byepass southern alignment is more or less similar. The entire land acquired for these different revenue estates is located adjacent to each other in Tehsil Fazilka.

The learned counsel for the claimants argued while referring to the following findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that even on that principle the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 57,500/ uniformly :

"When land is acquired along the road, special belt to the extent of 50 metres on either side of road as established to give at enhanced value and the acquired land falls within this belt and the award of Shri R.L. Anand. Ex. A.4 is the best instance of the market value, but in that case the land was acquired on 31.12.1981 and the acquisition in this case has been done on 23.5.1984. So, the applicants should be given some enhanced percentage over the award given by Shri R.L. Anand vide Ex. A.4, i.e. Rs. 46,000/ per acre. Increase by 10% will justify the market value of the acquired land. So, I assess the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 50,600/ per acre for Nehri. The acquired land in this case is all Nehri and as such there is no need for giving award for barani or any other kind of land."

There is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the claimants. Ex. P.4 notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 31.12.1984 while the present notification in question is dated 23.5.1984 and giving an increase of nearly 10% on this value without computing the same for the coming next year, the compensation payable would be Rs. 57,500/ and as such to that extent the claimants are entitled to enhancement. I am further of the considered opinion that the claimants should be given 12% increase instead of 10% for the relevant time on simple basis. In that event the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of more than Rs. 59,800/ per acre.

At this stage it will be relevant to mention that for the construction of Abohar byepass southern alignment, huge land was acquired from various revenue estates including the above villages. This Court had the occasion to deal with a large number of appeals in relation to the patwar circles/revenue estates of Abohar and Azeemgarh. It has come in evidence in these cases as well as in the other connected appeals that Abohar Patwar Circles I and II, Azeemgarh and Alamgarh are revenue estates adjacent to each other. Parts of these lands are acquired in municipal limits while others are located outside the municipal limits of city Abohar. Therefore, I would prefer to follow the same principle settled in RFA No. 736 of 1991 and the compensation awarded therein.

It will be definitely proper to adopt belting system in the present case as has been applied by the learned Courts below in other cases. The application of the belting system in the connected regular first appeals has been upheld by this Court and as such the same principle should be adopted in these cases also.

It must be noticed that in all these cases the State has preferred no appeals. In other words they have accepted the awards pronounced by the learned trial Courts.

For the reasons aforestated I would partly accept the appeals of the claimants with proportionate costs and award them the same compensation as has been awarded in RFA No. 736 of 1991 titled as Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, decided today. Consequently the claimants whose lands are located within the municipal limits of City Abohar would be entitled to get Rs. 60,578/ per acre, while the claimants, whose lands are located out of the municipal limits, would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 47,995.20 per acre. They shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. (sic) State are dismissed, while the appeals of the claimants are partly accepted with proportionate costs.