IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.6911 of 1990 Date of decision: 1.11.2011 Miss Surinder Kaur & others -----Petitioners Vs. Bhatinda Improvement Trust & others -----Respondents and another connected case being Civil Writ Petition No.6096 of 1990 Bathinda Improvement Trust -----Petitioner Vs. Ravi Inder Singh Sidhu & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present:- Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners No.1 & 2 in CWP No.6911/1990 & for respondents No.2 & 4 in CWP No.6096/1990. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.6096/1990 & for respondents No.1 & 2 in CWP No.6911/1990. --- RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. 1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.6096 and 6911 of 1990 as both the petitions arise out of common award of the reference Court of acquisition of land belonging to the claimant- petitioners in Bathinda under the Punjab Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, “the 1922 Act”). CWP No.6911 of 1990 2. In CWP No.6911 of 1990, the owners of the acquired land have sought enhancement of compensation while in the connected matter i.e. CWP No.6096 of 1990, the Improvement Trust has sought scaling down of the compensation awarded. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Improvement Trust assessed the market value of the acquired land @ `20/- per square yard. The learned Tribunal on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enhanced the same to `40/- per square yard. The date with reference to which we are called upon to assess just and adequate compensation would be 10.10.1975/24.10.1975, the crucial date, when notice of declaration of acquisition under Section 36 of the 1922 Act was issued. Finally, the land was acquired on 4.4.1977. The award was made by the learned Tribunal on 4.1.1990, against which, these two writ petitions arise. 4. The claim in the writ petition filed by the owners is that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 40/- per square yard is inadequate and that it should be enhanced at least to `175/- per square yard. It has been averred that the land in dispute had a great commercial potential on the date of acquisition. In support of their plea for enhancement, the owners produced documentary evidence on record by way of sale deeds of comparable land. Six of these sale deeds are prior to the date of notification under Section 36 of the 1992 Act and were of land ranging from 30½ square yards to about 200 square yards with 2 CWP No.6911 of 1990 price varying from `6,000/- to `9,000/-, which worked out to about `180/- per square yard. 5. On the contrary, the Improvement Trust produced sale deeds to establish that the market value of the acquired land ranged from `10/- to about `26.50 per square yard and on the strength of this, they have sought reduction in compensation. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, preened the record in both the matters. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-claimants relied upon the cross-examination of Mr. Ajaib Singh, Patwari appearing for the Improvement Trust, Bathinda as its witness. It has come in his evidence that the Main Bazar of Bathinda City is situated at a short distance of about 50-60 karams from the acquired land towards its Southern end. The witness also admitted that the distance of Railway Station from the acquired land is just 90 karams while the Gold Digi Shopping Complex is also at an arms length from the acquired land. A cinema hall known as Kamal Cinema adjoins the acquired land and that two metalled roads touch two sides of the acquired land. The shops on the Railway road reach upto the acquired land while Samrat Hotel is 40 karams away from the acquired land, though the witness also volunteered that this hotel was built after the present acquisition. The position which emerges is that the acquired land was before the crucial date surrounded by residential as well as commercial 3 CWP No.6911 of 1990 buildings. On the strength of this, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that his clients should be given a fair deal by way of enhancement of compensation at least @ `175/- to `200/- per square yard. 8. On the other hand, Mr. K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel for the Improvement Trust argued that on the strength of the sale deeds produced by the Improvement Trust, it is fit case for reduction in compensation. His further submission for reduction is that there were squatters on the land. His further argument centers around the statement of RW-3 Nawab Singh, the Improvement Trust witness who deposed to the effect that in his presence, Surinder Kaur, claimant (petitioner) had approached one Shri Bakhtaur Singh Gill, the then Chairman of the Improvement Trust, Bathinda and had requested that her land be acquired since she was unable to get possession from the squatters and that she would be prepared to accept as low as `4/- or `5/- per square yard. We asked learned counsel as to the probative value of this evidence and whether it was mere hearsay inasmuch as that Nawab Singh says that he was present when the Chairman and Surinder Kaur, petitioner, met and he heard her imploring that her land be acquired. He was unable to show us any legal principle in the Evidence Act which supports this statement as anything but hearsay evidence, since it was not accepted as correct by the claimant-petitioners in evidence. We feel that nothing would depend on this hearsay evidence. Mr. 4 CWP No.6911 of 1990 Dadhwal also went on to argue that the land had squatters and therefore, it diminished its value considerably and that still further it was prone to water-logging. 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and counter-arguments as presented before us. 10. We do not agree with learned counsel for the Improvement Trust that merely because there are squatters or that land is low-lying, would be sufficient to non-suit the claimants in their claim for enhancement or that it should serve as ground for reduction of compensation. We have no doubt that the land in dispute had high potential value, as known in the commercial sense. The sale deeds produced by the owners inspire sufficient confidence in us that award of `40/- per square yard by the learned Tribunal is wholly inadequate. 11. We have been very fairly informed during hearing by Mr. Dadhwal that in relation to the same acquisition in CWP No.8693 of 1990 Bhatinda Improvement Trust, Bhatinda v. The Land Acquisition Tribunal & others decided on 23.8.2011, a Division Bench of this Court had enhanced compensation of lands situated not far from the land in dispute. The crucial date in the said case was 9.8.1974 when the notification was first published under Section 36 of the 1922 Act and that land was in the same vicinity as in the present case. In that case, this Court enhanced the compensation to `60/- per square yard along with all statutory benefits and has dismissed the writ petitions 5 CWP No.6911 of 1990 preferred by the Improvement Trust, Bathinda. A perusal of this judgment shows that sale deeds of the year 1972 were under consideration in that matter. We take it that the difference of time between the acquisitions of these two set of cases is sufficient to conclude as fair and reasonable for well recognized principles of increase every year of land prices. We, therefore, think it just, fair and equitable to award `70/- per square yard in the present case. Consequently, the owners appeal is allowed partially to the extent of enhancement of compensation from `40 per square yard to `70 per square yard. No other issue was pressed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Improvement Trust against the award of the learned Tribunal is dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected case. No costs. (M.M. KUMAR ) ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE November 01, 2011 ak 6