R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: February 21, 2011 Nachhattar Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. S. Jammu, Mr. Kranti Dhir and Mr. Santosh Sharma for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for PSIEC ... Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2591, 2693, 2694 of 2004; 58 to 62, 124, 381 to 383, 762 to 765 of 2005 and 1092 of 2007, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas by filing appeals, the PSIEC is seeking reduction thereof. 3. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 13.11.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab sought to acquire 103 acres, 6 kanals and 13 marlas of land, situated in village Danewala, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar, for setting up of Industrial Focal Point. The same was followed by R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004 [2] notification dated 12.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide his award dated 2.3.2000, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,52,000/- per acre; ` 4,20,000/- per acre; ` 2,58,000/- per acre, ` 2,42,000/- per acre and ` 3,39,000/- per acre for different parts of the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of land measuring 70 kanals and 08 marlas, which was abutting the GT road, @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre and for remaining land, the award of the Collector was upheld. 4. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that when the land in question was acquired, almost at the same time, the land in the vicinity was acquired, of which even the possession had been taken on 31.1.1998. The Collector in that case had awarded compensation @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre for the land on the defence road and ` 7,00,000/- per acre for the land abutting G.T. Road and ` 4,50,000/- per acre for remaining land, which included 30% solatium and interest @ 12% per annum, vide award (Ex. A-44). The submission is that the acquired land is located on Malout-Dabhwali GT road. Part of the land pertaining to award (Ex. A-44) is also located adjoining thereto. The Collector in the present case has awarded lesser amount of compensation to the land owners, which deserves to be enhanced at least at the rates given by the Collector in award (Ex A44). The acquired land in the present case is in a compact block, major portion of which is located on GT road and on the other side adjoins the land, which was subject matter of award (Ex. A44). The area in the vicinity was already developed. Number of industrial units and commercial establishments were existing there. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while not disputing the fact that for the land acquired for Seme Nala, award (Ex. A44) was passed. The possession thereof was taken on 31.1.1998 and the aforesaid land is located adjoining to the acquired land. However, he submitted that the land owners should not be awarded same amount of compensation, as they have failed to produce on record any sale deed justifying that the award of the Collector in their case was not just and fair. R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004 [3] 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that from site plan (Ex. P-6), it is evident that the acquired land is located on Malout- Dabhwali road and on one side thereof is Seme Nala. The award pertaining to acquisition of land for Seme Nala is Ex. A-44. The possession of the aforesaid land was taken on 31.1.1998. As per that award, for the land located at different places, different amount of compensation was assessed, which is as under: Defence road ` 6,00,000/- per acre G.T. Road ` 7,00,000/- per acre Remaining land ` 4,50,000/- per acre The aforesaid amount of compensation included 30% solatium and interest @ 12% per anum. 7. In the present case, the Collector had assessed the compensation at different rates pertaining to different khasra numbers. The basis thereof is not available in the award of the Collector as it only mentions that these were the rates intimated by the District Collector, which were duly approved by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). The contents of the award to that effect are extracted below: “The rates intimated by the District Collector which have been duly approved by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab vide his letter No. 1/56/99-Rev.I/3632 dated 31.5.1999 are as under: i) Rectangle No. 116, khasra No. 4/2 (Min), 5 (min), 6 (min), Rectangle No. 98, Khasra No. 1 (Min), 2, 8, 9 (Min), 13 (Min), Rectangle No. 117, Khasra No. 1,10, 11 (Min), 12, 19, 20, 22, 23 @ ` 4.52 lacs per acre. ii) Rectangle No. 98, Khasra No. 13 (Min), 14, 17, 18 (Min), 24 (Min), 25 @ ` 4.2 lacs/acre. iii) Rectangle No. 99, Khasra Nos. 6, 7 (Min), Rectangle No. 116, Khasra No. 11, 12, 14, 15 (Min), 16,17, 18 to 25 @ ` 2.58 lacs per acre. iv) Rectangle No. 115, Khasra No. 6, 7, 8 Rectangle No. 116, Khasra No. 2, 3, 6 (Min), 7 to 10 @ ` 2.42 lacs per acre. v) Balance area to be acquired for industrial Focal Point R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004 [4] Malout except above mentioned area from Sr. No. 10(iv) @ ` 3.39 lacs per acre.” 8. The location of the aforesaid rectangles was perused in site plan Ex. R-9. As to on what basis this categorization has been made, could neither be explained by the learned State counsel nor any reasonable basis could be understood from a perusal of the site plan. Some of the khasra numbers located on the road has been given lesser rates whereas the land pertaining to some of the khasra numbers which is not abutting the road has been given higher rates or the land at equal distance from road, has been given different rates. Even in award dated 25.2.1999, Ex. P-44, pertaining to acquisition of land in village Danewala for construction of Malout Drain, the value of the acquired land was determined @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre upto one acre at defence road, ` 7,00,000/- per acre upto one acre on G. T. Road, and ` 4,50,000/- per acre for the remaining land. The possession of the land acquired for construction of Malout Drain was taken on 31.1.1998. 9. The above principle is in consonance with the principles settled for valuation of the acquired land as the value of the land on G. T. Road or on any National Highway is always higher as compared to land not located on the road, in my opinion, the same principle is required to be applied in the present case. 10. On a perusal of award, Ex. P-44, pertaining to land of Malout Drain, it is evident that the possession of the land was taken on 31.1.1998 meaning thereby that the notification under Section 4 of the Act must have been issued prior thereto. In the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.11.1997. However, there being no other evidence on record, in my opinion, the value of the land upto to the depth of two acres from the main road i.e. Malout-Dabwali Road deserves to be assessed at a uniform rate i.e. @ ` 4,52,000/- per acre whereas for the rest of the land, the value of the land deserves to be assessed @ ` 3,39,000/- per acre as there is no basis available on record to justify different rates for different portions of land. Ordered accordingly. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. 11. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman R.F.A. No. 2591 of 2004 [5] in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 –Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” 12. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge February 21, 2011 mk`