R.F.A.No.654 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A.No.654 of 1993 Date of Decision:06.10.2009 State of Punjab .....Appellant versus Shanti Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.O.P.Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The State of Punjab has by way of the present appeal approached this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) seeking reduction in the amount of compensation, awarded by the reference court to the landowners-claimants. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 30.03.1988 followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act which was published in Punjab Govt. Gazette on 02.05.1988 so as to acquire the land measuring one bigha and nineteen biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghaggar Sarai, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for the public purpose, i.e. construction of the Banur Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 17.08.1988 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for the Chahi land and Rs.35,040/- per acre for Gair-Mumkin land. Besides the aforesaid amount of compensation, benefits of 12% per annum increase from 05.04.1988 to 16.08.1988 and solatium at the rate of 30% R.F.A.No.654 of 1993 2 were also given. Feeling dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners-claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act The reference court had placed reliance on the judgment Exhibit A-3 passed by this Court in respect of acquisition which was made in pursuance to the Notification dated 28.02.1983 wherein the market value of the land of the same village, i.e. Ghaggar Sarai was determined as under:- “ i) All types of irrigated land falling ...At Rs.19,500/- within a depth of 100 karams on per bigha. either side of the G.T.Road. ii) For the lands adjoining the ...At the flat rate of Urban Estate Rajpura upto a Rs.1,50,000/- per depth of 50 karams irrespective acre. of its revenue classification. iii) All irrigated lands ...At the rate of irrespective of the source of Rs.15,000/- per irrigation and not covered by the bigha. abovesaid two belts. iv) Rausli ...At the flat rate of Rs.7500/- per bigha. v) Gair Mumkin ...At the rate of Rs.6000/- per bigha. Since there was no direct sale instance available vis-a-vis to the time of acquisition of the land under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, the Reference Court after granting 12% per year increase for 5 years, as the notification in the present case was issued on 30.3.1988, vide award dated 02.09.1992 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.24,000/- per bigha for the Chahi land and Rs.9600/- per bigha for the Gair-Mumkin land. Besides this, the landowners were also granted other benefits as admissible under the Act. According to the learned State counsel, the award of R.F.A.No.654 of 1993 3 Rs.24,000/- per bigha for Chahi land and Rs.9600/- per bigha for the Gair- Mumkin land by granting 12% increase per year is unwarranted and excessive. It is this enhancement which has compelled the State to approach this Court for seeking reduction in the quantum of compensation awarded by the reference court. I have heard the learned State counsel and after giving my thoughtful consideration, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned State counsel. In cases when no sale instances closer to the date of notifications are available, the instances of the past period, especially those closer to the date of notification and of the same village, can be taken note of for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. While doing so, some guess work may be inevitable. It is not disputed that in respect of the land of the same village, this Court at an earlier point of time, vide judgment, Exhibit A-3, had determined the market value of the acquired land as noticed above where the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 28.2.1983. In the present case, the reference court had rightly placed reliance on Exhibit A-3. The primary question that now arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in allowing 12% per annum increase over and above market value settled vide Exhibit A-3. The issue regarding annual increase to be allowed in case of instances prior to date of notification under Section 4 of the Act came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Versus Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1558, wherein 10% increase every year was held to be reasonable in the following words: “After the deliberations on the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the R.F.A.No.654 of 1993 4 given facts and circumstances of the present case, the appreciation of 10% per annum given for the subsequent years is neither excessive nor unreasonable so as to call for our interference.” In another pronouncement of the Apex Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and another, A.I.R. 2004 SC 2895, 15% per year increase was considered to be just and fair. It is, thus, not as a rule of law that only a fixed percentage should be adopted in all cases. The rate of per annum increase depends upon various factors as there is no strait-jacket formula to assess the same and cannot be taken as a rule of evidence on the basis of which compensation of the market value of the acquired land is to be assessed. The percentage of appreciation may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Reference Court allowed 12% per year increase which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust in any manner. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is are accordingly dismissed. October 06, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE