Vidya Wati and ors. vs Punjab State and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

By notification on 23.4.1976, the State of Punjab acquired 12 acres of land in village Siali, district Gurdaspur, for the construction of a public road. The Land Acquisition Collector, by award dated 8.10.1977, awarded compensation as follows :

(i)

Block `A''

...

...

...

Rs. 180/ per Marla.

(ii)

Block `B''

...

...

...

Rs. 160/ per Marla.

The two Blocks were made on the basis of nearness to Dhangu Road. On some portion of the acquired land, there was structure for which also compensation was awarded. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for consideration by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. After evidence was recorded, he allowed compensation for the land acquired, as follows :

(i)

Rs. 450/ Marla for land abutting on Dhangu Road.

(ii)

Rs. 350/ per Marla for the rest of the land.

Some increase was allowed in the value of the superstructure also. Dissatisfied with the same the State of Punjab filed Regular First Appeal No. 990 of 1980 whereas the claimants filed separate Regular First Appeal No. 1097 of 1980 to claim enhanced compensation of the land and the superstructure.

As regards the State Appeal the market price of the land acquired was determined at Rs. 300/ per Marla for Block `A'' and Rs. 170/ per Marla for Block `B''. To that extent, the State appeal was allowed and the market price fixed by the Additional District Judge was thus modified. As regards the appeal filed by the claimants (i.e. R.F.A. No. 1097 of 1980), the Collector had awarded Rs. 86,700/ as the value of the building, i.e., superstructure, which was modified by the learned Additional District Judge, and was fixed at Rs. 88,692.50. In appeal, the learned Single Judge enhanced it to Rs. 1,03,209/ as the market price of the superstructures on the acquired land.

In this appeal filed by the claimants, the claim is only for enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired and not for superstructures. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 243CI of 1984 was filed before the learned Single Judge under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure praying that the applicants be allowed to produce documents Annexures P1 and P2 by way of additional evidence. However, no order was passed thereon and thus the learned Single Judge erred in law in awarding the compensation for the acquired land at different rates. According to the learned counsel, it has been completely overlooked that for the land acquired for Wood Seasoning Plant in the year 1966, which is located at a distance of 200 feet from the acquired land, the Additional District Judge had allowed compensation at Rs. 500/ per Marla. The land in the present case was acquired in the year 1976, i.e., 10 years later. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the appellants were entitled to compensation at least at the rate of Rs. 1000/ per Marla.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 428 of 1984 (Manohar Lal and others v. The State of Punjab and others) the market price as determined by the Additional District Judge awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/ per Marla has been maintained and the value fixed by the learned Single Judge therein has been set aside. In the present case, on reference the learned Additional District Judge has found the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 450/ per Marla. By aforesaid civil miscellaneous application (C.M. No. 243CI of 1984) the appellants placed on record a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 197778 and the plan showing the distance between the land acquired for the Wood Seasoning Plant and the land of the claimants now acquired. According to that plan, the distance between them is only 205 feet. Compensation for the land acquired for Wood Seasoning Plant in year 1966 was allowed at the rate of Rs. 500/ per Marla. The present land was acquired after 10 years, i.e., in the year 1976. It could not be denied that the prices of the land have gone up during these ten years and the acquired land is near the said land i.e., at a distance of 205 feet only, situated within the Municipal limits. Moreover, the claimants have purchased the land for construction of their house which has already been constructed and for which compensation has been allowed separately. In these circumstances, the market price of the acquired land belonging to the appellants could not be less than Rs. 700/ per Marla in any manner, though the appellants have claimed compensation at Rs. 1000/ per Marla on the basis of the land acquired for the Wood Seasoning Plant at the rate of Rs. 500/ per Marla. But there, the land acquired was much more whereas the present land is a small one. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and allowing the additional evidence to be placed on the record, the appellants will be entitled to the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 700/ per Marla.

Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed with proportionate costs. The judgment of the learned Single Judge with respect to the acquired land is modified to the extent indicated above. The appellants will also be entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the Supreme Court authority in Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 S.C. 1576 : 1987 R.R.R. 473 : 1986 R.R.R. 606. In other words, the appellants will receive solatium calculated at the rate of 30 per cent on the amount of enhanced compensation under the amended Section 23(2) of Land Acquisition Act as also interest at the rate of 9 per cent annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date on which possession of their land was taken up the date of payment of such enhanced compensation.