R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 Date of Decision: November 04, 2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant vs. Kulwant Singh and others .....Respondents Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr. N.S.Pawar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr.Amit K. Singh, Advocate. for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall disposed of 8 Regular First Appeals No. 2313 to 2319 and 2793 of 1989 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. An area of 4.62 acres situated in village Bhatris, H.B.No. 278, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 18.9.1985 followed by notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 24.9.1985, for the public purpose namely, for the construction of SYL canal. Although the area notified under Section 6 was 4.62 acres but the actual R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -2- measurement carried out at the spot was found to be 4.18 acres, which was marginal and ignored. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal, Punjab(for short the Collector), vide his award No. 122/P-SYL dated 25.5.1986 awarded compensation of the acquired land by dividing the same into two categories (i) Chahi @ of Rs. 62,000/- per acre and (ii) Gair Mumkin @ of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The land owners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and inter alia pleaded that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 2 lacs per acre at the time of acquisition. The acquired land had high potentiality as it used to yield three crops in a year. The acquired land is divided into two parts which fact has not been considered by the Collector. In the reply, it was alleged that adequate and just compensation has already been awarded by the Collector. The land was acquired for widening of the canal. Earlier, the land was acquired for SYL canal project in the year 1984 for which compensation @ of Rs. 49,500/- per acre was awarded and since the present acquisition is of the year 1985 , Rs. 62,000/- has been awarded keeping in view the escalation in the prices. Both the parties to the lis led their respective evidence. The Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 1.6.1989, re- determined the compensation @ of Rs. 80,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs. 53,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 19,950/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Sh. Amit K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the land owners/claimants has argued that Reference court has relied upon decision Exhibit R-4, pertaining to the acquisition dated 14.10.1982 of the land of revenue estate of village Bhatris for the public purpose for construction of R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -3- SYL canal, in which compensation @ of 60,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land was maintained and after giving an increase of 12% every year for a period of two years after following the decision in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1988 SLJ 501 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 53,000/- for Barani land and Rs. 19,950/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. It is contended by the counsel for the land owners/claimants that Reference court has erred in not considering the sale deed dated 5.11.1984 (Ex. A-6) of 01 kanal of land of village Hulka, which was sold for a sum of Rs. 16,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,28,000/- per acre. Both the villages Hulka and Bhatiras adjoins each other. On the other hand, Ms. N.S.Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has contended that the court below has committed a palpable error in giving 12% increase every year in view of the decision of this Court in Inder Singh's case (supra), which has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mehtab Singh and others vs. State of Haryana 1995 (2) PLR 47. It is also submitted by the counsel for the State that sale deed dated 5.11.1984, Ex. A-6 of village Hulka was also considered by this court in R.F.A.No. 1296 of 1986 titled as State of Punjab and others. vs. Nachhatar Singh and others decided on 11.3.1987 (Ex. R-4). I have heard the counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective contentions. It is undisputed that the land of village Bhatris was earlier under acquisition on 14.10.1982 for the same purpose of construction of SYL canal. The Land Acquisition Collector after classifying the acquired land into three categories, awarded compensation @ of Rs.49,550/- per acre R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -4- for Chahi land, Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land, which was further enhanced by the Reference court as Chahi @ of Rs. 60,000/- per acre, Barani @ of Rs. 40,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. The said acquisition of 14.10.1982 was the subject matter of appeal at the hands of the State of Punjab in R.F.A.No. 1296 of 1986 titled as State of Punjab and others vs. Nachhatar Singh and others in which sale deed dated 5.11.1984 (Ex. A-6) pertaining to village Hulka was produced as Exhibit A- 1. In the said case all the sale deeds were considered including the sale deed of village Hulka and after that the award of the Reference court was upheld maintaining the compensation awarded by it and the appeals filed by both the land owners/claimants and the State of Punjab were dismissed. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the land owners/claimants in respect of consideration of sale deed Exhibit A-6. Insofar as the contention of counsel for the State is concerned, it has to be accepted that the decision relied upon in Inder Singh's case (supra) by the court below for the purpose of giving 12% increase over the compensation assessed for the acquisition dated 14.10.1982 in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Nachhatar Singh and others (Ex. R-4), cannot be relied upon since the same has been over ruled in Mehtab Singh' case (supra). However, the Supreme Court has now in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot v. Mohd,. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib AIR 2002 SC 1558 held that in view of the escalation of prices of land, the court could take judicial notice and awarded an increase of 10% for every subsequent year. Thus, in view of the above, the appeals filed by the State of Punjab are allowed only to the R.F.A.No. 2313 of 1989 -5- extent that the claimant/land owners shall be entitled to 10% increase instead of 12% increase every year. Except for this modification the award of the reference court shall remain the same . (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 4th November, 2008 paramjit