IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1128 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.2.2010 Improvement Trust, Gurdaspur. -----Appellant Vs. Kiran Bajwa & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, enhancing the compensation for acquired land to Rs.35/- per square yard. 2. The land in question was acquired in pursuance of notification dated 31.10.1986 under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short, “the Act”). The land is within the Municipal limits of Gurdaspur City and is surrounded by National Highway, Gurdaspur to Amritsar, on one side and State Highway, Kalanaur Road, on the other side and is also close to LPA No.1128 of 2009 main commercial market of Gurdaspur City (as noticed in para 4 of the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge). 3. The land Acquisition Collector determined compensation vide award dated 25.10.1989 @ Rs.470/- per marla i.e. Rs.15.65 per square yard, which was enhanced by the Tribunal vide award dated 16.12.1999 to Rs.16.66/- per square yard. 4. The land owners filed writ petitions in this Court and submitted that the relevant evidence led by the claimants disclosed the market value of the land to be much higher. 5. Learned Single Judge upheld the said plea by recording following findings:- i) Instances Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 were part and parcel of the same acquired land and no other instance of bigger piece of land was available. After taking into account the location and smallness of the plots, the instances were be relevant to the extent of holding that the market value was Rs.35 per square yard. ii) Award Ex.R15 and Ex.R16, relied upon by the appellant, related to undeveloped and low lying area and acquisition therein was of the year 1983 and the same could not be made basis for assessment of compensation of the acquired land; 2 LPA No.1128 of 2009 iii) Instances Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and Ex.R17 to Ex.R20 etc., relied upon by the appellant were not of comparable locations. 6. Learned Single Judge concluded as under:- “...... Learned counsel for the Improvement Trust has rightly contended that the land comprising sale deed [Ex.A8] is abutting an internal approach road and required hardly any additional expenditure towards development. His contention that the ‘development charges’ for providing basis and bare amenities are 100 to 150% of the value of an undeveloped land also carried weightage. It simply means that the market value of the acquired land as a composite piece could not be more than Rs.45/- per square yard. I am further of the view that the sale consideration for a smaller example cannot be taken as the sale consideration for a bigger chunk of land. It cannot be overlooked that a needy person who wants to have a roof over his head would pay higher sale consideration for a smaller plot of land as compared to a Developer who is looking for a bigger chunk of land for colonization. Further, it has to be kept in view that when residential plots are carved out on a bigger chunk of land, a substantial part of the total land is utilized for laying roads, parks, open areas and other public utility services and hardly 65% of the area is utilized for actual residential purposes. In other words, at least one third of the sale price is further liable to be deducted to arrive at the actual, fair and just market price of the acquired land. Keeping these factors in view the acquired land could have fetched the price not more than Rs.35/- 3 LPA No.1128 of 2009 per square yard had it been sold as a composite piece of land.” 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge erred in taking only Ex.A8 into account while there was other evidence showing lesser market value. 9. We are unable to accept the submission. Learned Single Judge has discussed the entire evidence including evidence which is now sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. awards Ex.R15 and Ex.R16 and sale deeds Ex.R17 and Ex.R18. Awards have been discussed in para 16 and sale instances have been discussed in para 17 of the impugned judgment and it was found that having regard to location of the land covered thereby or the date of acquisition of land therein, the same could not be made basis for award of compensation for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any error in the said finding. 10. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 11. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 24, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) 4 LPA No.1128 of 2009 ashwani JUDGE 5