CWP No. 15326 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15326 of 2002 Date of decision: 3.3.2009 Bhikam Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus The District Judge, Bathinda and others. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos. 16833, 16834, 16984, 16985, 16982, 16983, 16981, 16980, 17014 of 2002 and for respondent-land owners in CWP Nos.20650, 20651 of 2002. Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP Nos. 2379 to 2400 of 2003) Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for the Improvement Trust. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 (in CWP Nos. 20655, 20284 of 2002, 20354, 2399 and 2393 of 2003) Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP No. 3615 of 2003. Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in CWP Nos. 20267, 20282 and 20355 of 2002 CWP No. 15326 of 2002 2 Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (in CWP Nos. 16833, 15326, 16197, 16834, 16980, 16981, 16982, 16983, 16984, 16985, 17014, 17622, 17623, 17624, 17627 of 2002. -.- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This order will dispose of 134 writ petitions: 98 filed by the Improvement Trust being CWP Nos. 20264, 20266, 20267, 20268 to 20286, 20313, 20338, 20349, 20350 to 20358, 20650, 20651 to 20661 of 2002 and CWP Nos. 2379 to 2400, 3610 to 3618, 525 to 545 of 2003 and 36 filed by the land owners being CWP Nos. 15326, 16197, 16833, 16834, 16980 to 16985, 17014, 17622, 17623, 17624 and 17627 of 2002 and CWP Nos. 944, 945, 3319 to 3322, 4032, 4978 to 4982 of 2003 and 17286, 17287, 17289 to 17295 of 2003. 2. Land measuring 49.50 acres was acquired for development of a Scheme prepared by the Bathinda Improvement Trust, Bathinda under the provisions of the Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922. Notification under Section 36 of the Act was issued on 4.9.1993 followed by notification under Section 42(1) dated 31.8.1994. The Collector vide award dated 29.8.1996 determined compensation for the acquired land in two blocks - at CWP No. 15326 of 2002 3 the rate of 20.52 lacs per acre ( about Rs.424/- per sq. yard) for gair mumkin and Rs. 8 lac per acre for barani land. The Improvement Trust did not challenge the award but the land owners preferred reference to the Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act. The Tribunal vide its award dated 11.6.2002 held that entire land was required to be evaluated at a uniform rate i.e. Rs.20.52 lacs per acre. Findings about the location and nature of the land are :- “The oral statements of Devinder Singh (AW.1), Jatinder Kumar (AW.2), Harnek Singh (AW.7), Abhey Singla, Advocate (AW.8) and A.C.Goyal (AW.9) leave no doubt in our mind that the land in question has been situated within the municipal limits of district Bathinda at the time of acquisition of the land. Near the acquired land, there has been developed residential colonies and other industrial and commercial properties. At the relevant time, the land was lying vacant and was not being used for agricultural purposes. The land in question could be used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Xx xx xxx xxx In this manner we have found that the whole of the land was lying vacant and was not being used for agricultural purposes. The land has been proved to be even. Respondent has not produced any evidence that they spent money on making the land even and filled ditches and pits. The Collector has not mentioned in the award CWP No. 15326 of 2002 4 that the land was low lying and it had pits. In such a situation there was no justification for classifying the land into the Gairmumkin land and Barani land. The learned Land Acquisition Collector could not grant different types of compensation for gairmumkin and barani land when the land is located at the same place and was fit for residential, commercial and industrial use. The Land Acquisition Collector could not treat the equals as unequal and grant compensation at different rates without assigning any cogent reason. The Land Acquisition Collector did not assign any reason for granting compensation at different rates when the land was acquired by the same notification.” 3. On behalf of the claimants reliance was placed, inter- alia, on Exhibits A-5 and A-6 which were sale deeds dated 4.12.1993 and 18.1.1993 respectively showing the rate about Rs. 500/- per sq. yard. The Tribunal held that the said instances could not be made basis for determining market value of the entire land as they related to small plots of land. For the same reason, instances Exhibits A-11 to A-13 were also not made the basis for grant of compensation. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. CWP No. 15326 of 2002 5 5. Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust in support of writ petitions filed by the Trust, submitted that the categories determined by the Collector should not have been interfered with. 6. Learned counsel for the Trust is unable to show any error in the findings that the entire land is identical. The same formed one compact block. 7. Learned counsel for the land owners support the said finding by submitting that land being contiguous and being similar and forming compact chunk, there was no justification for awarding different types of compensation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh & Ors., 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 638 = 2005(12) SCC 564 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Hissar Improvement Trust v. President, Tribunal Improvement Trust, Hissar and others, 2005(4) RCR (Civil). 8. We do not find any ground for interfering with the finding of the Tribunal that the entire land is compact and has to be valued at uniform rate. This being the position, judgments relied upon on behalf of land owners are fully applicable. Thus, we do not find any merit to allow the writ petitions filed by the Improvement Trust. The same will stand dismissed. CWP No. 15326 of 2002 6 9. Coming now to the writ petitions filed by the land owners, only contention raised on their behalf is that there are sale instances Exhibits A-11 to A-13, which are of the year 1997, wherein land sold to Cotton Corporation of India at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq. yard. By referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C himanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1653 it was submitted that even post notification instances could be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and not motivated by the acquisition itself. 10. We are unable to hold that case of the land owners falls under the parameters law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for taking into account by post notification instances, as the said instances are four years after the acquisition and not “very proximate”. 11. Acquisition was in the year 1993 and sale instances were in the year 1997. The said instances cannot, thus, be basis for determining compensation as on 4.9.2003. 12. We are also of the view that if two views are possible, finding of tribunal will not be liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. CWP No. 15326 of 2002 7 13. Thus, no ground is made for allowing the writ petitions filed by the land owners also. The same will also stand dismissed. 14. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March,3.2009 (Jitendra Chauhan) mk/gs Judge