RFA No.2250 of 1990 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2250 of 1990 Date of Decision: 22.8.2008 Balwant Singh ..Appellant. Vs. Punjab State and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Hemant Saini and Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocates for the appellant. Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of RFA Nos.2250 to 2256 of 1990 and 1480 of 1991 filed by the claimants/land owners and RFA Nos.1598 to 1600 of 1991 and 493 to 502 of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab. Since identical questions of law and facts are involved in all the aforesaid appeals, however, the facts are being taken from RFA No.2250 of 1990 titled as Balwant Singh Vs. Punjab State and others. Land measuring 27.20 acres in the revenue estate of village Jugial and land measuring 7.40 acres in the revenue estate of village Rajpura were proposed to be acquired vide notification dated 4.10.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the `Act') for the public purpose namely for extension of Shahpur Kandi RFA No.2250 of 1990 -2 - township on western side of colony followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 31.1.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector Ranjit Sagar Dam Shahpur Kandi bifurcated the acquired land into two categories namely Barani-I and Barani-II and assessed the compensation @ Rs.18,000/- per acre and Rs.12,320/- per acre respectively. Dissatisfied with the award, Objections under Section 18 of the Act were filed. An identical plea in each reference/Objection was taken that the land in question is situated in the township of Shahpur Kandi where the residential colony has already been constructed and there were number of shops, hospital and bank etc. It was further claimed that land adjacent to the acquired land was earlier acquired for which Rs.40,000/- per acre has been awarded, therefore, keeping in view the time gap, market value of the acquired land has swelled to Rs.80,000/- per acre. On the other hand, the respondents while contesting the claim applications alleged that the acquired land was uneven and stony used for agricultural purpose, therefore, it cannot be equated with the developed land. The claimants/land owners examined Mohan Lal, Patwari circle Jugial as AW1, Kartar Singh, Patwari circle Rajpura as AW2 and Raghbir Singh applicant as AW3 and had also tendered Aks Shajra of village Jugial as Ex.A1, copy of extract of Aks Shajra of village Rajpura as Ex.A2, copy of award dated 1.4.1987 Ex.A3, copy of judgment of the High Court Ex.A4 and copies of sale deeds Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7. In rebuttal, the respondents had examined Inderjit Patwari RW1, who produced the copies of Aks Shajra of villages Jugial and Rajpura Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 respectively RFA No.2250 of 1990 -3 - and also tendered sale transactions Ex.R3 to Ex.R22. The sale transactions which have been relied upon by the land owners are as under : “Sale transactions relied upon by the applicants S.No. Ext.No. Date of sale Area Consideration Village Appx. Sold Per acre 1. A.5 29.3.8 2 - 0 Rs.11,500/- Jugial Rs.46,000/- 2. A.6 27.4.87 1 – 3 Rs.20,000/- Jugial Rs.96960/- A.7 10.9.86 8 – 0 Rs.40,000/- Rajpura Rs.40000/- The sale transactions which have been relied upon by the respondents are as under : “Sale transactions relied upon by the respondents S.No. Ext.No. Date of sale Area Consideration village Appx. Sold Per acre 1. R.3 1.9.83 53 – 01 Rs.19900/- Jugial Rs.3000/- 2. R.4 4.7.83 16 - 0 Rs.20000/- Jugial Rs.10000/- 3. R.5 12.6.86 29-13 Rs.1100/- Jugial Rs.1880/- 4. R.6 17.2.86 7 - 02 Rs.13000/- Jugial Rs.14856/- 5. R.7 30.9.85 36 - 0 Rs.27790/- Jugial Rs.6166/- 6. R.8 3.7.85 8 - 0 Rs.15000/- Jugial Rs.15000/- 7. R.9 13.2.85 8-0 Rs.9000/- Jugial Rs.9000/- 8. R.10 29.3.84 8-0 Rs.12000/- Jugial Rs.12000/- 9. R.11 15.4.86 8-0 Rs.11000/- Jugial Rs.11000/- 10.R.12 30.9.85 48-15 Rs.38942/- Jugial Rs.6500/- 11.R.13 19.3.86 27-07 Rs.45000/- Jugial Rs.13000/- 12.R.14 27.5.85 20-0 Rs.35000/- Jugial Rs.14000/- RFA No.2250 of 1990 -4 - 13.R.15 17.11.83 32-0 Rs.9500/- Jugial Rs.2368/- 14.R.16 24.6.85 4-0 Rs.6000/- Rajpura Rs.12000/- 15.R.17 18.6.85 10-10 Rs.5000/- Rajpura Rs.3808/- 16.R.18 19.7.85 16-0 Rs.24000/- Rajpura Rs.12000/- 17.R.19 7.8.86 3-4 Rs.3000/- Rajpura Rs.8000/- 18.R.20 8.4.85 8-0 Rs.7000/- Rajpura Rs.7000/- 19.R.21 17.6.85 16-0 Rs.24500/- Rajpura Rs.12250/- 20.R.22 21.1.87 3-11 Rs.5000/- Rajpura Rs.12000/-” Besides the sale deeds, the land owners had relied upon award dated 1.4.1987 Ex.A3 pertaining to village Jugial vide which Rs.40,000/- per acre was awarded for the acquisition dated 12.7.1984. This award was confirmed vide Ex.A4 dated 6.9.1988. The Reference Court, ignored the sale deeds produced by the claimants/land owners Ex.A5 to Ex.A7 on two counts, firstly because those were pertaining to few Kanals each and secondly, were of the post notification period. It was also found that location of the land covered in those sale deeds as shown in Ex.AI were different from the disputed land. Out of the sale deeds produced by the respondents, sale deeds Ex.R8 and Ex.R14 dated 3.7.1985 and 27.5.1985 respectively were of more than the rates awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for Barani II type of land but less than the rates awarded for Barani-I type of land. Moreover, those sale deeds were not relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector and perusal of sketch Ex.R1 revealed that majority of the land covered by the RFA No.2250 of 1990 -5 - sale deeds relied upon by the respondents were no-where near the disputed land. Therefore, the Reference Court relied upon Ex.A3 i.e. award dated 1.4.1987 vide which land of village Jugial which was adjacent to the acquired land and awarded Rs.40,000/- per acre. Counsel for the appellant has argued that market value assessed vide award Ex.A3 relates to the acquisition dated 12.7.1984 whereas the notification in the present case, was issued on 4.10.1985, therefore, the Reference Court has palpably erred in not awarding an increase of one year. In this regard, counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib AIR 2002 SC 1558 and prayed that at least 10 % increase per acre should be awarded over and above what has been assessed by the Court below. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has argued that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is already on the higher side, therefore, there is no scope for further enhancement. It was rather argued that in view of the sale transactions quoted by the respondents, compensation has to be reduced. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It has come on record in the statement of RW1 Inderjit Patwari, who has produced site plans Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 that the boundaries of Jugial and Rajpura adjoin each other. He also stated that some area of village Jugial was acquired in the year 1984 which is adjoining to the acquired RFA No.2250 of 1990 -6 - land. Therefore, in my view, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the award Annexure A-3 dated 1.4.1987 which pertains to the acquisition of land of village Jugial but has definitely erred in awarding the same compensation for the present acquisition though there is a difference of more than a year between the two acquisitions pertaining to award Ex.A3 and the present one. Accordingly, in my view, the appellants are entitled to 10% increase per acre for a period of one year in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) in which it is held as under : “In these appeals the land was acquired by issuing a notification under S.4 dated 22nd August, 1991 for a public purpose, namely, the formation of link road to the new town Bagalkot Township. It is not disputed that the land under acquisition is adjacent to the land in Civil Appeal No.12515 of 1996 and other connected cases. The potential value of the land under acquisition in these appeals is the same as in the earlier cases. The reference Court granted an appreciation of 10% for every subsequent year. Taking the base price at Rs.5.50 per sq. ft. fixed for acquisition of the land in the year 1985 as in the earlier cases, at the rate of 10% in the value of the land for every subsequent year. As the earlier acquisition was of 1985 and this acquisition is of the year 1991, appreciation for six years was granted. The reference Court determined the payable market value at Rs.7/- per sq.ft. which was later confirmed by RFA No.2250 of 1990 -7 - the High Court. In addition statutory benefits of solatium and interest etc. were also granted. In the earlier notification for the year 1985 we have fixed the market value of the land for the year 1985 at Rs.5/- per sq. ft. On giving an appreciation of 10% in the value of the land for every subsequent year for a period of six years the value of the land would come to Rs.8/- per sq. ft. The claimants have not filed either cross-appeals or cross- objections. The overall value of Rs.7/- per sq.ft. fixed by the reference Court and confirmed by the High Court is thus reasonable and does not call for any interference.” In view of the above discussion, the present appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and compensation is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.44,000/-. The claimants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits including costs whereas the appeals filed by the State, which are devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 22.8.2008 Judge Meenu