RFA No.2038 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2038 of 1993 Date of decision: 13-10-2009 State of Punjab and another ....Appellants VERSUS Sube Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of RFA Nos.2038 and 3533 of 1993 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. However, the facts are taken from RFA No.2038 of 1993. State of Punjab vide notification dated 24.9.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 13.10.1987 acquired the land situated in revenue estate of village Gajdi Nagar, H.B.No.254, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, for a public purpose, i.e. construction of Banur distributory from R.D. 0.058 to 0.812 meters. The Land Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 16.5.1988 assessed the compensation payable to the land owners for the acquired land @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. RFA No.2038 of 1993 -2- The claimants being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. The reference court vide Award dated 2-12-1991 determined the market value of the acquired land as under:- 1. Chahi Rs.27200/- per Bigha 2. Gair Mumkin Rs.9600/- per Bigha The claimants were also held entitled to solatium @ 30% and annual increase @ 12% under Section 23(1A) of the Act. Besides the aforesaid, the land owners were also held entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% P.A. for the first year and @ 15% P.A. for the subsequent period till the date of payment. Feeling dissatisfied with the Award passed by the Reference Court, the State has approached this court for reduction of the amount of compensation. I have heard the learned State counsel and have gone through the records with his assistance. The reference court had placed reliance on Ex. A1, the award, vide which, the market price of the land of the same village, i.e. Gajdi Nagar, acquired for construction of SYL Canal vide notification dated 16.9.82, was assessed as under for the purpose of granting compensation:- 1. Chahi Rs.17000/- per bigha 2. Nehri Rs.17000/- per bigha 3. Rosli Rs.7500/- per bigha RFA No.2038 of 1993 -3- 4. Gai Mumkin Rs.6000/- per bigha Since the notification in the said case was dated 16.9.82, after allowing 12% increase per year for 5 years, as the notification in the present case is dated 24.9.87, the reference court determined the market value as noticed above. The primary question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in allowing 12% per annum increase over and above the market value settled vide Exhibit A-1. The issue regarding annual increase to be allowed in case of instances prior to date of notification under Section 4 of the Act came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Versus Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1558, wherein 10% per year increase was held to be reasonable in the following words: “After the deliberations on the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the appreciation of 10% per annum given for the subsequent years is neither excessive nor unreasonable so as to call for our interference.” In another pronouncement of the Apex Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and another, A.I.R. 2004 SC 2895, 15% RFA No.2038 of 1993 -4- per year increase was considered to be just and fair. It is, thus, not as a rule of law that only a fixed percentage should be adopted in all cases. The percentage of appreciation may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Reference Court allowed 12% per year increase which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust in any manner. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) 13.10.2009 JUDGE manju