RFA No.420 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.420 of 1987 Date of decision 2.2.2010. Daljit Singh ...... Appellant. versus Punjab Water Supply and others ...... Respondents. Present : Mr. Ranjit Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for respondents. K.C.PURI. J. This is appeal for enhancement of compensation as awarded by learned District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment dated 4.10.1986. Vide notification No.5275-ICII-80 dated 8.1.1981 published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act), 41 kanals of land situated in the revenue estate of village Kingra, Hadbast No.301 Tehsil and District Jalandhar was acquired for execution of date bound Water Supply and Sewerage Works (under International Development Association Assistance) for Jalandhar Town. However, at site possession of only 39 kanals 18 marlas was taken as the land measuring 1K1-24mls situated in khasra No.911/11 was under the pacca road. The Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar vide Award No.3 of 1982 RFA No.420 of 1987 2 pronounced on 9.9.1982 awarded compensation in respect of the land measuring 39 kanals 18 marlas at the rate of Rs.362.50ps per marla together with 15% solatium and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of taking over possession i.e. 29.1.1981 to 31.8.1982. Details of the acquired land is mentioned in the award. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, Dalip Singh filed reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation, which was referred to the trial Court for adjudication. The petitioner has claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5000/- per marla. It was pleaded that the compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, was inadequate and unjust. The acquired land of the petitioner is stated to be surrounded on all sides by residential and commercial buildings and even covered by Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Scheme of Jalandhar Improvement Trust. It was further pleaded that the acquired land has great potential value and the petitioner refused to accept meager compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The respondents in their written statement pleaded that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, was fair and just and the same was based on the sale transactions in the vicinity of the acquired land which adjoins cremation ground and was being used for agricultural purposes and has no potential value. Details of the acquired land of the petitioner was admitted by the respondents in their written statement. The issues were framed on 4.9.1985:- 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to the petitioners is inadequate ? If so to what RFA No.420 of 1987 3 amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, from whom, and in what respect ?OPA. 2. Relief. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence led by the parties allowed the compensation to the petitioner of the land, as detailed in para No.3 of the impugned judgment, at the rate of 650/- per marla. The petitioner was also held entitled to get solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of dispossession till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation in the Court for payment to the petitioner. In case the respondents failed to deposit the aforesaid amount within one year, the petitioner was also held entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. The petitioner was also held entitled to get additional amount calculated at the rate of 12% on the market value of the acquired land for the period commencing from the date of Publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 8.1.1981 in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner upto the date of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, or the date of taking over the possession whichever is earlier. Feeling dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award, the appellant- petitioner has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act, is dated 8.1.1981. The land acquired was 39 kanals 18 marlas and was acquired for the purposes of execution of water and sewerage works under International Development RFA No.420 of 1987 4 Association Assistance. The claimant produced as many as 13 sale deeds of the adjoining lands to the land in question, which took place just prior to the date of the impugned acquisition. The trial Court has discarded these sale deeds on the ground that the sale instances of small land. It is submitted that where the other instances of sale are not available in that case, instances of small pieces of land can be taken into account. The sale deeds are per se admissible in view of Section 51-A of the Act. The learned District Judge, should have accepted the sale deeds and should have enhanced the amount. Accordingly, to support this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the authorities Bhim Singh & Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 608; Ranvir Singh and anr vs. Union of India 2005(4) RCR (Civil) 277 and Baldev Krishan Singh vs. Land Acquisition Collector 1999(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 541. It is further contended that the sale instances given by the respondents are far away from the acquired land and as such the same has rightly been ignored by the trial Court. It is submitted that the average price of the sales, covered by the sale deeds produced by the land owner, is to be taken into account. In that case, the market value will be more than Rs.1450/- per marla. The learned District Judge has only enhanced the amount to the extent of Rs.650/- per marla, which is on lower side. The land acquired has a high potential value as the same situated on the main road and is near the factories etc. The acquired land adjoins the boundary of Improvement Trust, Jalandhar near to the Improvement Trust colony known as Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar as well as Model Town, Jalandhar. Mohinder Singh, Senior Clerk, Improvement Trust, Jalandhar has stated that the RFA No.420 of 1987 5 improvement trust has sold the land @ Rs.4200/- per marla. The learned District Judge, has not even discussed the said evidence. The learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon the sale deeds Exs.R-1 and R-2. In reply to above noted submissions, the learned State counsel has submitted that sale instances given by the appellant are in respect of small pieces of land and the trial Court has rightly ignored the same. There is no potential value of the land as the same was required for water works and sewerage works only. The land acquired is just opposite the cremation ground and on that account also nobody likes to construct anything near the acquired land. The sale instances given by the respondents should have been accepted. So, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the appeal. I have heard both the sides and have gone through the records of the case. The notification in this case was issued on 8.1.1991 in respect of 41 kanals of land situated in the revenue estate of village Kingra Tehsil and District Jalandhar and the land measuring 39 kanals 18 marlas was acquired. The Collector assessed the rate at Rs.362.50ps per marla togetherwith 15% solatium and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of taking over the possession. The claimant/land owner claimed the rate of land at the rate of Rs.5000/- per marla. The learned trial Court, assessed the market value @ Rs.650/- per marla and the petitioner was held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest @ 9% p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of dispossession till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount of compensation. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant is on the RFA No.420 of 1987 6 sale deeds Exs. P-1 to P-13 and according to these sale deeds, the average sale price per marla comes to Rs.1134/- approximately. The learned trial Court has held that these sale instances is far away from the acquired land and are instances of small pieces of land. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon authority Deputy Director Land Acquisition vs Malla Atchinaldu and others 2007(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 894 to support the contention that instances of sale of small pieces can be taken into consideration. So far as the authority Baldev Krishan Singh's case (supra) is concerned, in that case, cut of 50% was imposed in respect of instances of sales of small instances but the High Court justified the cut to the extent of 25% in the market value, to determine the market value in respect of sale deed of small instances. The land in question abuts the road leading to Jalandhar. In map Ex.P-1, one cold-storage and model town near the back side of land has been shown whereas in the same map quarters of Housing Board have been shown near the acquired land. So, in view of the authority Baldev Krishan Singh's case (supra), I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be made in case 20% cut is imposed in respect of sale deeds of small instances i.e. from Ex.P-2 to P-13. So, in these circumstances, the market value comes to Rs.850/- per marla. The learned Additional District Judge assessed the market value at Rs.650/- per marla. Keeping in view the situation of the land, market value stands enhanced to Rs.850/- per marla. So far as the sale instances given by the respondents in Ex.R-1 to R-3 are concerned, that are on the back side of the land, the value of the RFA No.420 of 1987 7 land on the back side i.e. away from the road is always on lower side. Moreover, 2½ acre of acquired land abuts the main road leading to Jalandhar. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that land is situated opposite the cremation ground and on that ground its potential value is on lower side is concerned, that submission cannot be accepted. Now a days due to paucity of land, the cremation grounds are in the density populated area. So, the above argument is without any merit and the same stands repelled. So, keeping in view whole of the circumstances, the appeal is partly accepted. The market value of the land is assessed at the time of notification is assessed as Rs.850/- per marla. The respondents are directed to make the payment of the enhanced amount of Award along with statutory benefits under the Act. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE February 2nd, 2010 sv