IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2011 Tara Singh and others …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.A.S.Narang Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G. Punjab Mr.Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2 Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of four writ petitions bearing Nos.7508 of 2010, 14800 of 2011, 14801 of 2011 and 14802 of 2011, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.7508 of 2010. Petitioners are the land owners, whose land was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (in short, the Act) on 9.11.1990, followed by another notification, issued under Section 42 of the Act on 20.11.1991. An award was passed on 11.11.1993. As per facts on record, the land was acquired for the development Scheme of 50 kanal 1 marla adjoining to the Housing Board Colony of Ajnala Road Expansion Scheme (Part-IV). Admittedly, land falls Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) Improvement Trust limit. The Collector granted compensation @ 150/- per square yard for land measuring 48 kanal 16 marla, situated in village Gumtala Suburban tehsil and district Amritsar. The land owners were also held entitled to get other statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 1894 Act). Being dis-satisfied, the petitioners/ land owners filed applications under Section 18 of 1894 Act, for enhancing the amount of compensation. Applications were referred by the Collector to the Land Acquisition Tribunal (constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act) at Amritsar. On receipt of a reference, notice was issued. After getting pleadings from both the parties, issues were framed on 28.11.1987:- “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimants are entitled to recover? OPA 3. Relief.” Thereafter, parties were given an opportunity to lead evidence. The land owners/ claimants produced as many as nine witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. It was their case that the price of land is not less than Rs.4000 to Rs.5000 per square yard. It is situated next to the municipal limits and adjoins a developed scheme by the Improvement Trust. It has potential to develop it into commercial property. The Improvement Trust did not produce any evidence. The Tribunal, by taking note of a fact that no sale instance from the land under acquisition or land situated nearby has been brought on record, upheld the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. In award dated 31.7.2008, under challenge, it was observed as under:- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) “36. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the Sub Registrar, Amritsar, had fixed the price of the land, where the acquired land is situated, for the purpose of registration of the sale deeds at the rate of Rs.1600/- per square yard, is also devoid of merits, as, valuation fixed by the Sub Registrar cannot be the basis for ascertaining the market value. In order to succeed in this case, it was required of the applicants to prove sale instances of the land adjacent to the acquired land. In these cases, applicants have led no evidence of any sale instances of comparable lands. They have only relied upon document, Ex.A11, which is report of Chandra Committee, whereby, valuation of the land was fixed in respect of the lands where the acquired land is situated. 37. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary vs. Mohammed Ibrahim & anr. 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments, 253 (S.C.) held that valuation cannot be fixed on the basis of value fixed by District Magistrate, Badaun, in respect of lands in the area. So, in sum, in this view of the ruling, value fixed by Chandra Committee vide report, Ex.A11, cannot be made basis for ascertaining the market value, as the applicants have not led any evidence of any sale instances of comparable lands. So, in the absence of the sale instances, it must follow that the Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 11.11.1993 rightly assessed the compensation of acquired land @ Rs.150/- per square yard. This compensation could be enhanced if some sale deeds of comparable lands had been 3 Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) produced to show that such land was sold at a price higher than the price of the acquired land, when the award dated 11.11.1993 was rendered. So, no case is made out to enhance the compensation and it is held that the compensation awarded by respondent No.2 vide award dated 11.11.1993 was adequate. So, both these issues are held against the applicants and in favour of the respondents. 38. As a result of discussion and findings on issues (supra), all the references are answered against the applicants and in favour of the respondents.” At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has stated that AW1 Jaspal Singh, Senior Clerk in the office of respondent- Improvement Trust has categorically stated that before passing an award, opinion of the Tehsildar was sought regarding value/ price of the land and its potentiality. In response thereto, the Tehsildar sent his report on 16.9.1992 (copy of entry in register is Ex.A2). By making reference to that report, counsel states that a government official in the rank of Tehsildar has admitted that value of the land is about Rs.800 per square yard. It is categoric case of the petitioners that the effect of the above said report was not considered at all by the Tribunal when order was passed. The Tribunal below has also erred in not taking note of the potentiality of the land under acquisition to develop it into residential and commercial purpose. By making reference to a report made by the Tehsildar, referred to above, it is stated that land is situated within the municipal limits, next to the housing board colony and the built up houses surrounds the land on two sides. It is situated next to the Ranjit Avenue. It is prayed that in view of above, this 4 Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) writ petition be allowed, award under challenge, be set aside, compensation be enhanced. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Mr.Gupta, who, by making reference to the evidence on record, has stated that unless a sale instance is brought on record, to show that price of the land is higher than the one suggested by the Land Acquisition Collector, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. He further averred that no evidence was brought on record by the petitioners and further land was agricultural in nature when put under acquisition. However, on asking of the Court, he admitted that the land is situated outside the municipal limit, however, it falls within the Improvement Trust limit. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence in a proper manner. It is not in dispute, that before pronouncing the award, the Land Acquisition Collector sought opinion of the Tehsildar regarding price of the land, which was replied by the Tehsildar vide letter dated 16.9.1992. Relevant contents of the letter read thus:- “On the subject cited above for the sale transactions from 31.7.1991 to 30.7.1992, the rate is Rs.166/- per sq.yard and the rate as per Chandra Committee report is Rs.75/80 per sq.yard. The land under subject has been inspected on the spot and the revenue record has been watched out and the total area of Gumtala Suburban is under the boundary limit of municipal limits and near bye-pass which is under the boundary of colonies of Improvement Trust and its maximum share is out of boundary of municipal limits, upto many 5 Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) kilometers. In Gumtala Suburban, the rate of properties under the municipal limits are high than the land out of municipal limits. Under it, there are Housing Board colonies on two sides and Kothis and two sides: Ranjit Avenue kothis. It is known on the spot that there are Improvement Trust roads in these areas and the rate of sale is Rs.1000/- per sq.yard and this property is in the shape of plots and area is 50 kanals 11 marlas and it is sold by constructing and the rate minimum is Rs.1000/- - Rs.1100/- per sq.yard and its rate is much higher than the Sub Registrar rates being the property under the boundary of Improvement Trust colonies. I hereby recommended its rate as Rs.800/- per sq.yard (Rupees Eight Hundred only). Hence the same is presented for appropriate action.” In this letter, it is clearly stated that as per sale transaction from 31.7.1991 to 30.7.1992, the rate of land is Rs.166 per square yard. It is also submitted that the area of the Gumtala Suburban is within the boundary limits of the municipal corporation, is situated near the by-pass and within boundary of colonies of Improvement Trust. May be land is situated outside the municipal limits but it falls within the limits of Improvement Trust. The land has been acquired for development of a Scheme by the Improvement Trust. Under the circumstances, it was incumbent for the Tribunal to look into the potential value of the property in dispute. In the letter, referred to above, it is clearly mentioned that the land is surrounded by the developed colonies on all the four sides. The Tehsildar recommended that the rate of the land be assessed at Rs.800 per square yard. That may be on the higher side but the Tribunal has not looked into this 6 Civil Writ Petition No.7508 of 2010(O&M) evidence at all, which was on record. Not only as above, the Tribunal has also not referred to the benefit of the potentiality of the land, for which the land owners are entitled to get higher amount of compensation. Tentatively, we are of the opinion that the land has a potential to develop into residential and commercial property. In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed, order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to decide it afresh. Parties be at liberty to produce evidence, if any, afresh. Two opportunities be given to lead additional evidence, if need be, within a span of three months, to each of the parties. The Tribunal shall make an effort to decide the matter within nine months from the date when the parties first put in appearance before it. Any observation made in this order, shall not affect merits of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 7.9.2011. In view of order passed, all pending applications have become infructuous. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 12.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 7