R.F.A. No. 3732 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGRH R.F.A. No. 3732 of 1992 Date of decision: 12.11.2009 Kartar Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the appellants Mrs. Ambika Luthra, A.A.G. Punjab HEMANT GUPTA,J.(oral) This order shall disposed of R.F.A. Nos. 3732 (Kartar Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another), 3733(Jaskaran Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another), 3734(Naib Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another) and 3735(Mohinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) of 1992 arising out of the award of the Reference Court dated 11.3.1992 determining market value of the acquired land and R.F.A. Nos. 2374(Rajinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) and 2375(Jaskaran Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another) of 1997 against the award of the Reference Court dated 7.6.1997 determing the market value of the trees on the aforesaid acquired land. Land measuring about 8 acres comprising in villages Mahantanwala and Kutti, Tehsil and District Ferozepur was intended to be acquired for construction of Nidhana minor vide notification dated 3.4.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to R.F.A. No. 3732 of 1992 2 as the Act). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25.1.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 11.1.1989 determining market value of the land @ Rs.18,000/- per acre for chahi and nehari, Rs.6100/- per acre for Banjar Kadim and Rs.22,000/- per acre for Gairmumkin land. The Land Acquisition Collector has not awarded any compensation for the trees, wells, structures nor any amount of compensation was awarded for severance of land. Dissatisfied with the said determination of compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners have sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value of the land by the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge in his award dated 11.3.1992 directed the Land Acquisition Collector to announce the award in respect of trees and severance charges but found no illegality in the matter of determing the market value by the Land Acquisition Collector of the land. In terms of the directions of the learned Reference Court, the Land Acquistion Collector announced its suppelementary award on 4.11.1982 determining compensation of Rs.41770/- in respect of standing trees. The said award became subject matter of reference before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge vide his award dated 7.6.1997 did not find any ground for enhancing the market value of the trees . Being still aggrieved, the landowners are in appeal bearing RFA No. 2374 and 2375 of 1997. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that three sale dees in respect of land situated in village Mahantanwala and Kutti were produced in evidence but learned District Judge has ignored those sale R.F.A. No. 3732 of 1992 3 deeds on wholly untenable grounds. Learned District Judge has found that the sale deed Ex.PZ is of the year 1983 and therefore, cannot be made basis for determining the market value of the land. Before proceedings further relevant extract from the sale deeds reads as under: Sale deed Exhibit Date of sale deed Area of land sold Consideration name of the village Rate per Marla PZ 01/03/83 1k-10M Rs.7,500/- Mahantanwala Rs.250/- PZ/1 04/03/87 10 M Rs.10,000/- Kutti Rs.1000/- PZ/2 09/10/87 6 M Rs.6,000/- Kutti Rs.1,000/- Out of the aforesaid sale deeds, sale deed dated 9.10.1987 pertains to post acquisition period. Therefore, the same is not relevant for determining the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 3.4.1987. Vide sale deed Ex.PZ land measuring 1K-10M was sold for total consideration of Rs.7500/- i.e. Rs. 250/- per marla. The learned District Judge was in fell in error in ignoring this sale deed on the ground that such sale cannot be formed basis for determination market value of larger track of land. It is well settled that sale instances of small area can form basis for determining the market value of large track after applying suitable deduction. The nature of the land is not described in the aforesaid sale deed of small area but same pertains to village Mahantanwala. It provides a reasonable yard stick for determining the market value of the land per acre. The sale deed dated 4.3.1987 is in respect of land situated in village Kutti. The land described is nehri. The location of the land is vis-a- vis acquired land cannot be made out. But it cannot be said that the subject matter of Ex.PZ/1 is no way comparable with the land in the present case as it pertains to the same revenue estate of which present acquisition is part. Since these two sale instances are in respect of land of revenue R.F.A. No. 3732 of 1992 4 estate of which acquisition is part, therefore, the same can be considered relevant for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired land. The sale consideration of land comprising in Ex.PZ is Rs. 250/- per Marla. Ex.PZ/1 is the sale instance of the year 1987. Average of two sale instances Ex.PZ and Ex.PZ/1 is Rs. 625/- per Marla. Since the exact location of the land is not available, I deem it appropriate to deduct 50% of the amount towards development charges. By such powers of deduction on account of sale of small area the per Marla approximate value comes to Rs. 300/- i.e. Rs. 48,000/- per acre. The market value of the acquired land is thus determined at Rs.48,000/- per acre. No meaningful argument could be raised in respect of the determination of the market value of trees. Therefore, R.F.A. No. 3732 to 3735 of 1992 are allowed in the manner indicate above whereas R.F.A. No. 2374 and 2375 of 1997 are dismissed. The appelants shall be entitled to stautory benefits under Section 23(IA), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as well. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE November 12, 2009 RSK