In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.F.A. No.734 of 1993 Date of decision: October 08, 2009 Fauja Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 735 of 1993 Dalip Kaur and another .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 736 of 1993 Darshan Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 737 of 1993 Dalip Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1350 of 1993 Harbans Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs. .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No.734 of 1993 -2- *** R.F.A. No. 1351 of 1993 Ram Singh .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1605 of 1993 Takhat Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment of mine shall dispose of seven connected appeal Nos.734 to 737, 1350, 1351 and 1605 of 1993, having arisen out of the same award dated 25.11.1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, partly accepting the reference and awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits for the acquired land. The Punjab Government, vide notification No.ASR/81/61 dated 19.3.1981 published in the Government Gazette on 15.5.1981, acquired 39.21 acres i.e. 313 kanals 13 marlas of land situated in village Aujla, Tehsil & District Gurdaspur. The Collector after completing the formalities passed the award on 10.10.1985 awarding compensation @ Rs.30,000/- per acre for chahi and gair mumkin khal area and Rs.30,800/- per acre for nehri kind of land. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants submitted reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, enhanced he compensation in the R.F.A. No.734 of 1993 -3- *** above said terms but still dissatisfied, the appeals have been preferred It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the claimants that the acquired land is situated near abadi as such it has high potential value, therefore, its market value was not less than Rs.3000/- per marla. The potential value of the land has been ignored by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. It has been submitted by Harbans Singh, Dalip Singh, Avtar Singh and Bhan Singh claimants that inadequate compensation was granted for the super structures and the electric tube-well over the acquired land. The references were contested by the respondents. While refuting the allegations, it was submitted by the State that the Collector had awarded adequate compensation after taking into consideration the market value and value of the super structures over the acquired land. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation?OPA 2. What is the fair and reasonable amount of compensation of the land acquired?OPA 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to solatium and interest. If so, at what rate?OPA. 4. Relief. In order to substantiate their claims, the appellants examined Kartar Singh (PW1), J.S. Dhanjal (PW2), Niranjan Singh (PW3), Yashpal Patwari Halqa (PW4), Thakur Dutt (PW5), again J.S. Dhanjal (PW6) and Santa Singh S.D.O. (PW7). To the contrary, the respondents examined Bahadur Singh Kanungo (RW1), Hardip Singh Horticulture Development Officer (RW2) and Banarsi Dass retired J.E.P. RW3). The claimants further placed on record copy of the award dated 6.4.1990 passed by Mr. D.S. Chhina, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur Ex.P10 and further tendered into evidence copies of the sale deeds Ex.P11 to Ex.P14. The respondents have also tendered into evidence copies of the sale deeds Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.8. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, after scrutiny of the evidence held the market value of the acquired land @ R.F.A. No.734 of 1993 -4- *** Rs.40,000/- per acre. They were awarded following amount on account of super structures: Harbans Singh Rs.3,000/- Avtar Singh Rs.3,000/- Bhan Singh Rs.4,000/- The main plank of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the light of the award dated 6.4.1990 (Ex.P10), passed by Mr. D.S. Chhina, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, he awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per acre for the land of the same village which was acquired under the same notification, then why the uniformity and parity in awarding compensation to the appellants be not maintained. To the contrary, learned State counsel has urged that Mr. Chhina passed two contradictory awards one on 13.3.1990, whereby he awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.45,000/- per acre and the other award dated 6.4.1990, whereby, he awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- per acre for the land of the same village and both these awards were discussed by Mr. G.S. Khurana, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 24.7.1990 and on a critical analysis of both the orders, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- per acre relating to the same village, therefore, parity should be maintained with the award dated 24.7.1990 (Ex.RH). Having appreciated the entire evidence on the record, it is noticed that the sale deeds Ex.P11 to Ex.P14 pertain to the land f some other village and these also are of small pieces of land, whereas, a big chunk of land was acquired in the present case. As such, I am reluctant to place reliance on these sale deeds regarding small pieces of land that too of different village to determine the market value of the land when the awards relating to the land of the same village passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, regarding same quality of the land are available on the record. Now coming to the different award, the appellant has tendered into evidence copy of the award Ex.P10 dated 6.4.1990, vide which the learned Additional District Judge determined the market value of the land R.F.A. No.734 of 1993 -5- *** situated in village Aujla at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. To the contrary, State has placed reliance on the award dated 24.7.1990 (Ex.RH) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur assessing the market value of the land situated in village Aujla at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. There is no denying a fact that the land regarding which the award was passed by Mr. G.S. Khurana, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 24.7.1990 as well as the land regarding which the award passed by Mr. D.S. Chhina, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, on 6.4.1990 relate to the same village and were acquired vide same notification and potentiality of the land covered under these awards is similar in nature. Mr. D.S. Chhina, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur may have passed the award dated 6.4.1990, on the basis of the evidence available before him, but certainly this award passed by him is contradictory to the award passed by him on 13.3.1990 relating to the same village covered by the same notification. As a matter of fact, Mr. D.S. Chhina should have dealt with these two cases simultaneously as land covered by both the cases is of the same village and was acquired under the same notification. Any way, these two awards could not be placed reliance being contradictory in nature and at the same time, the same were discussed in the later award dated 24.7.1990 (Ex.RH) passed by Mr. G.S. Khurana, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, he while appreciating these two awards dated 13.3.1990 and 6.4.1990 (Ex.P10) and also about 18 sale deeds Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-19 (As referred in the judgment dated 24.7.1990 passed by Mr. G.S. Khurana, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur) and reached the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land was @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. The award Ex.RH sounds to the reason and is based on the valid evidence. Even in the instant case no such evidence has been brought on record by the appellants to prove that the value of the acquired land was more than Rs.40,000/- per acre. It may further be noticed that the land was acquired in this border area of Gurdaspur in the year 1981 where immediately thereafter, the terrorism in whole of the State of Punjab commenced in the year 1984. The border areas of Gurdaspur, Ferozepur and Amritsar were the worst effected. The prices of the land started decreasing instead of being accelerated as the people started shifting along with sources to the R.F.A. No.734 of 1993 -6- *** nearby States in order to save their own skin. As such, while examining the case from any angle, the market value of the acquired land could not be assessed more than Rs.40,000/- per acre. Now coming to the super structures with regard to which claims were set up by Harbans Singh, Santokh Singh and Bhan Singh. No authentic evidence has been led to establish as to what was the market of the super structures raised by them at the time of acquisition. However, some evidence has been produced by way of report made in the year 1989. The report does not reveal if the author had taken into consideration the circumstances and estimated the rates at the time when the land was acquired. Thus, the trial court was right in awarding them compensation for the super structures as under : 1.Harbans Singh Rs.3,000/- 2.Avtar Singh Rs.3,000/- 3.Bhan Singh Rs.4,000/- Even as regards compensation awarded to the appellants Harbans Singh, Santokh Singh and Bhan Singh respectively, for the fruit trees, no such glaring circumstance or evidence warranting me to record enhancement has been brought to my notice. Having scrutinized the entire evidence, I do not find any such glaring circumstance which could invite me to distinguish the reasons as given by the trial court. Accordingly, while confirming the findings returned by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur on all the issues, the appeals preferred by the appellants are hereby dismissed. October 08, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge