Regular First Appeal No. 419 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Regular First Appeal No. 419 of 1993 Date of Decision: 30-10-2008 State of Punjab and others .....Appellants vs. Charan Singh and others .....Respondents Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl. A. G., Punjab None for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of 17 cases, namely, R.F.A.Nos.419 of 1993, 420 of 1993 and X-Objection No. 111-CI of 1995, 421 of 1993 and X-Objection No. 112-CI of 1995, 422 of 1993, 423 of 1993 and X- Objection No. 114 CI of 1995, 424 of 1993, 425 of 1993 and X-Objection No. 115-CI of 1995, 426 of 1993 and X-Objection No. 116 CI of 1995, 428 of 1993, 427 of 1993, 429 of 1993, 430 of 1993 and X- Objection No. 118 CI of 1995, 431 of 1993 and X-Objection No. 117 CI of 1995, 432 of 1993, 433 of 1993, 434 of 1993 and X-Objection No. 119 and 121 CI of 1995, 435 of 1993 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. An area of 6.95 acres in village Gurditpura, H.B.No. 268 Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') followed by a notification of Regular First Appeal No. 419 of 1993 -2- declaration dated 9/10.3.1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act for the public purpose namely, for construction of Natian distributory from RD 0 to 5049 meters. The Collector Land Acquisition, SYL Canal Project, Punjab, Patiala, vide his award No. 220/P-SYL dated 10.9.1987, classified the land into three categories namely Chahi -44kanals 14 marlas, Dakar - 7 kanals 6 marlas and Gair mumkin - 1 kanal 0 marla and awarded the compensation as under:- 1. Chahi Rs. 60,000/- per acre 2. Dakar Rs. 50,000/- per acre 3. Gair Mumkin Rs. 35,000/- per acre In the objections filed under Section 18 of the Act, it was inter alia pleaded by the land owners that the compensation assessed by the Collector is highly inadequate because the potential value of the land has not been considered though the same is situated in the focal point of village Khera Gajju and can be used for raising construction for the commercial purposes. It was also pleaded that number of important buildings like Government school, veterinary hospital etc. are in existence near the acquired land and thus the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 5 lacs per acre. In the written statement, the land owners' claim was stoutly contested in which it was submitted that compensation has been assessed by the Collector after due consideration of the relevant facts. Village Khera Gajju is at a distance of 1 KM from the acquired land. The acquired land is purely agricultural and village Khera Gajju has no trappings of a developed town. It was also pleaded that there is no industry or factory within the area of 15 kilometers of village Manakpur or village Gurditpura. So far as the school etc. is concerned, it was alleged Regular First Appeal No. 419 of 1993 -3- that these are available in most of the villages in modern age which could not be made a basis to ascertain the potentiality of the acquired land. The claimants examined AW-1 Salinder Singh, Patwari Halqa, Khera Gajju, who had stated that villages Khera Gajju and Urna adjoins each other. Village Khera Gajju is situated on a road leading from Rajpura to Chandigarh whereas Gurditpura is at a distance of three kilometers from G.T.Road. Land of village Gurditpura has the same potential as that of village Khera Gajju. In the cross examination, he stated that the acquired land is agricultural and land of village Manakpur intervenes between the land of village Khera Gajju and the acquired land. Tara Singh-claimant was examined as AW-2. The Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 24.10.1991 re-determined the compensation of the acquired land as Chahi @ Rs, 1,00.000/- per acre, Dakar @ Rs. 83,330/- per acre and Gair Maumkin @ Rs. 58310/- per acre, while relying upon document Exhibit A-8, which pertains to the valuation of the land of village Urna. The Learned court below did not equate the value of the acquired land with the land of village Khera Gajju on the the ground that Khera Gajju is situated on the road leading from Rajpura to Chandigarh and the acquired land is at a distance of 3 kilometers from G.T.Road. It was also found that Manakpur intervenes between the land of village Khera Gajju and the acquired land. Therefore, the land of village Khera Gajju was better located than the acquired land rather it was found that land of village Urna and Gurditpura were acquired by the same notification. Sh. N.S.Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State in the appeals filed on behalf of State of Punjab and also while opposing the Cross-objections filed by the claimants has Regular First Appeal No. 419 of 1993 -4- vehemently argued that the acquired land has no buildings and commercial potentiality thus the compensation calculated by the Land Acquisition Collector, is proper and award of the Additional District Judge, Patiala is on the higher side which deserves to be set aside. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the cross objectors/land owners. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants/State of Punjab. Insofar as the assessment of compensation is concerned, that has not been done by the trial court on the basis of the potentiality of the acquired land rather the compensation has been determined by the learned court below on the basis of a previous award Exhibit A-8 pertaining to the land acquired on 9/10.3.1987 of village Urna whereas the land of village Gurditpura was also acquired vide the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on the same date. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the approach of the Reference court while determining the compensation in the present case. No other point has been raised by learned State counsel. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the State as well in the cross objections and thus all are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE October 30, 2008 paramjit