R.F.A. No. 1206 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 26, 2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 1206 of 1992 (O&M) The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 1233 of 1992 (O&M) The State of Punjab .. Appellant v. The Scheduled Caste Cooperative Land Owning Society .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.P. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the land owner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 28.2.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 23 acres, 6 kanals and 7 marlas, situated in the area of Faridkot for cattle fair ground. The same was followed vide notification dated 6.5.1987, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 22,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 23,000/- per acre for nehri land and ` 47,000/- per acre for the land upto 40 karams adjoining the road. Dissatisfied with the award of the R.F.A. No. 1206 of 1992 [2] Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 90,000/- per acre in respect of land situated within 40 karams from the road; ` 42,000/- per acre for barani land and ` 44,000/- per acre for nehri kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in the present case is strategically located just close to the municipal limits of the city of Faridkot on a National Highway. The residence of DIG and godowns are located quite close thereto. It is merely one kilometer from the Octroi Post situated on Talwandi road. Railway Station is merely at a distance of one kilometer. A lot of residential and commercial establishments were also located in the vicinity. It had great future potential for being used as residential and commercial purposes, as abadi in the city was growing in that side. The land in question in fact, was purchased by the society for the purpose of construction of the houses and with the acquisition, all their plans have vanished as with the meagre amount of compensation paid, the land owners shall not be able to buy the land. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned court below had failed to consider the evidence produced by the land owners on record in the form of sale deeds (Ex. A6, Ex. A7 and Ex. A8) and in addition to that, award of the learned court below (Ex. A4) pertaining to the land acquired vide notification dated 22.12.1979, which is located quite close to the acquired land. In award (Ex. A4), even learned Reference Court had assessed the value @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre and the land in question having been acquired 6 years and 10 months years thereafter, the land owners are further entitled to increase at least @ 12% per annum thereon. It was submitted that though the aforesaid two sale deeds (Ex. A7 and Ex. A8) were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, still the same would be relevant to show the fact that there was rising trend in the prices of the land in the area. However, on a query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to the sale deeds has been pointed out on any site plan produced on record, the answer was in negative. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned court below, is already on the higher side. In fact, there is no evidence on record to justify the same. Sale deed (Ex. A6) produced on record by the land owners themselves show the value thereof at ` 42,000/- per acre. Sale deeds (Ex. A7 and Ex. A8) cannot possibly be relied upon for the reason that those were post acquisition sale transactions having been registered on 11.5.1987 and 26.6.1987, respectively. He further submitted R.F.A. No. 1206 of 1992 [3] that the learned court below while assessing the compensation for the acquired land had relied upon an earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition, i.e., Ex. A3, where value of the land acquired vide same notification, which was located on the road, was assessed. All what the learned court below had done while assessing the compensation for the land in the present case is that a proportionate increased had been granted for the land of other categories as well. On a query by the court as to whether award (Ex. A3), relied upon by the learned court below, was challenged any further by the State or by the land owners, both the learned counsels could not furnish any information. Accordingly, it is presumed that the same attained finality. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as location of the land is concerned, the facts, as have been noticed above, are not much in dispute. PW2-Sukhdev Singh, Patwari Halqa, though in his examination-in-chief, had stated that the land in question is located at a distance of one kilometer from the Octroi Post situated on Talwandi road, however, in his cross-examination, he stated that the distance might be 2 or 2-1/2 kilometers. Meaning thereby, the land was located in the outskirts of municipal limits, which will certainly have future potential of urbanisation. Accordingly, in my opinion, the categorisation thereof as Nehri or Barani will not be fair in these circumstances and the entire chunk of land has to be assessed as of one quality. Even otherwise, the case set up by the appellants was also that the land was purchased by them for construction of houses by its members. As far as evidence led by the land owners on record is concerned, the land pertaining to none of the sale deeds has been pointed out on any site plan produced on record. The entire documentary evidence led by the land owners in fact, was tendered in evidence as Ex. A1 to Ex. A8 by the counsel for the land owners while closing evidence on 4.6.1991. Not only this, even though award (Ex. A4) pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification dated 22.12.1979 for expansion of New Mandi Township at Faridkot was sought to be relied upon, but the land pertaining thereto has also not been pointed out on any site plan. However, a perusal of the aforesaid award shows that the same is located within the municipal limits of Faridkot and was adjoining the existing grain market, meaning thereby close to a busy commercial area. Accordingly, the amount, as assessed in the aforesaid award in any case cannot be made the basis for assessment of compensation for the acquired land in the present case, which admittedly is located beyond the municipal boundary. Sale deeds (Ex. A7 and Ex. R.F.A. No. 1206 of 1992 [4] A8) also cannot be relied upon for two reasons, namely, the land pertaining thereto has not been pointed out on any site plan and further those were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 in the present case. Be that as it may, however, the fact remains that there is an earlier award passed by the learned court below, i.e., Ex. A3 pertaining to the same acquisition. None of the counsels has pointed out as to whether the aforesaid award attained finality or was subject-matter of any further appeal. Under these circumstances, this court will proceed with the assumption that the same was final. Once for the land acquired vide same notification an award is existing, this court would not like to differ with the same in the appeal filed by the other land owners, especially when there is no independent evidence to justify any further enhancement. As far as the appeal filed by the State is concerned, the impugned award does not call for any interference as the earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition was not challenged by it. Now coming to the question of assessment of compensation. In my opinion, as I have already opined that the land in question being located close to the municipal limits of the city on the National Highway certainly, had the future potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. Under the circumstances to categorise the same as Nehri or Barani is not reasonable. Considering the aforesaid fact and also the fact that value of the land upto 40 karams from the main road has been assessed @ ` 90,000/- per acre, in my opinion, the land behind that deserves to be assessed at uniform rate of ` 50,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award of the learned court below, the appeals are disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 26, 2010 mk