RFA No.344 of 1991 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.344 of 1991 Date of decision: 10.12.2008 **** State of Punjab and another . . . . Appellant(s) Vs. Gurdial Singh . . . . Respondent(s) **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellant(s). Mr.Kulwant Singh, Advocate for Mr.J.S. Wasu, Advocate, for the respondent(s). **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of 8 Regular First Appeals filed by the landowners/claimants bearing Nos. 1032 to 1039 of 1991 and 8 Regular First Appeals filed by the State of Punjab bearing Nos. 344 to 350 & 737 of 1991, as identical questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The facts, however, are being taken from RFA No.344 of 1991 titled as “State of Punjab and another Vs. Gurdial Singh”. Vide notification dated 9/10.3.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’), followed by a declaration issued Section 6 of the Act published in RFA No.344 of 1991 - 2 - the Punjab Govt. Gazette, land measuring 5.83 acres was acquired in the Revenue Estate of Village Patton, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, at public expense, for public purpose, namely, for the construction of Boha-Kheri Distributory from RD 0 to 5342 meters. Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Punjab, Patiala, (in short ‘the Collector’) vide his award No.216/P-SYL dated 9.9.1987 determined the compensation of the acquired land as under: 1. Chahi : Rs.60,000/- per acre 2. Gair Mumkin : Rs.35,000/- per acre The landowners carried the reference to the Civil Court claiming that the value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2 lac per acre at the time of acquisition as it is situated in the periphery of Chandigarh. The landowners produced AW1 Sahib Ram, Patwari Halqa Patton, AW2 Banta Singh one of the claimant and also tendered in evidence Ex.A2, copy of judgment dated 31.8.1989 delivered by Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.R. Majithia, and Ex.A3, copy of judgment dated 8.2.1990 delivered by Sh. A.S. Gill, District Judge, Patiala. In rebuttal the State produced sale deeds Ex.R1 dated 5.6.1986 and Ex.R2 dated 8.8.1986, besides relying upon the award of the collector. The learned reference Court did not rely upon sale deeds Ex.R1 dated 5.6.1986 and Ex.R2 dated 8.8.1986 on the ground that these were not even relied upon by the Collector. The reference Court, however, taking the broader view RFA No.344 of 1991 - 3 - and determined the compensation of the Chahi land Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin land Rs.40,000/- per acre, besides awarding statutory compensation in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. Mr.Kulwant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant / landowners has vehemently contended that the reference Court has committed an error of law while not relying upon the earlier decision of this Court Ex.A2 rendered in RFA No.2475 of 1987 titled as “State of Punjab Vs. Surjan Singh and others”. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the said case, the land was acquired on 13.12.1982 in the Revenue Estate of village Polwal, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the construction of SYL Canal. The Collector had given compensation for Chahi land @ Rs.62,000/- per acre, Barani land @ Rs.50,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin land @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. In the said case, landowners relied upon a settlement arrived between the Chief Minister and the members of the Action Committee of the landowners who principally belonged to District Ropar. According to which Chahi land was evaluated @ Rs.1 lac per acre. Learned Single Judge of this Court held that the settlement may not attain the character of the binding contract since it was not entered into as provided under Article 299 of the Constitution of India and may not be construed as a contract in terms thereof but nevertheless it is a piece of evidence which could be taken into consideration for determining the market value. Thus, the statement was taken into account and since the land of village Polwal, was found to be within the Periphery Control Act, it was held to be a higher RFA No.344 of 1991 - 4 - potentiality than other land. In the circumstances in the said case, the compensation of Chahi land was evaluated @ Rs.1,25000/- per acre besides awarding compensation for Barani land @ Rs.75,000/- and Banjar @ Rs.55,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the State of Punjab had challenged the decision of the Single Judge rendered in RFA No.2475 of 1997 Ex.A2 by way of LPA No.1051 of 1992 titled as “State of Punjab through Executive Engineer Vs. Surjan Singh (died) and others”. The Division Bench vide its judgment dated 28.7.1993 held that “Mr.Chatrath was at pains to point out that even if the compensation was assessed on the basis of the agreement, the Chief Minister had merely stated that compensation for Chahi land shall be awarded @ Rs.1 lac per acre. He is undoubtedly right. However, it is equally important to notice that the learned single judge has found that the land had considerable potential of urbanization as it was on the periphery of Chandigarh. The potentiality of the land is valid consideration. In view of this potentiality, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that compensation ought to be awarded at a slightly higher rate. We find no adequate reason to interfere with the exercise of the discretion by the learned Single Judge. This is all the more so in view of the fact that compensation at the enhanced rate has admittedly been paid to a majority of the claimants. They may have invested the money and bought other pieces of land. It may be too harsh and inequitable to now ask them to part with any money. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, RFA No.344 of 1991 - 5 - we find no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge”. In the present case, it has come in the evidence that the acquired land of village Patton is similar in potentiality to that of the acquired land of village Polwal. It has also come in evidence that village Polwal and Patton are within the periphery of Chandigarh. In this view the matter, in my opinion, the land of village Polwal and the acquired land of village Patton has similar advantages and are required to be treated alike. Thus, the reasoning adopted by the learned reference Court while awarding compensation @ Rs.1 lac for Chahi land and @ Rs.40000/- for Gair Mumkin/Banjar land is perfunctory. Thus award of the learned reference Court is set aside. The appeals filed by the landowners are hereby allowed and the appeals filed by the State of Punjab are hereby dismissed. It is held that the landowners shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- for Chahi and Rs.50,000/- for Banjar and costs of appeal, besides all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 10.12.2008 JUDGE vivek