RFA No. 2684 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular First Appeal No. 2684 of 1993 Date of decision: 18.8.2009 State of Punjab ....Appellant. Versus Prem Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant. Nemo for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2684 to 2687 of 1993 filed by the State of Punjab as well as the cross-objections No. 129/C.I of 1997 filed by the land-owners/respondents in RFA No. 2685 of 1993 and Cross-objections No. 116/C.I of 1997 filed by the respondent-objector, Jagtar Singh, in RFA No. 2687 of 1993 as they arise out of the same award of the reference court and relate to the same acquisition. The reference court had consolidated all the references vide order dated 25.9.1991 as all cases arose from common Award No. 311/P-SYL dated 26.8.1988 of the Land Acquisition Collector. The facts of the case are that certain land of the landowners situated in the revenue estate of village Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was acquired by the State of Punjab for the RFA No. 2684 of 1993 -2- purpose of constructing Jansui Minor. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act') in that regard was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 4.4.1988 and the same was followed by declaration dated 21.4.1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Punjab after affording an opportunity to the land-owners of being heard, awarded compensation for land measuring 6 Kanals 12 Marlas for chahi kind of land at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. An increase in compensation at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.4.1988 to 25.8.1988 was also ordered, besides ordering for payment of solatium at the rate of 30%. The land-owners felt dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and accordingly sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, voicing their grievance that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was inadequate and it did not represent the true market value of the land. They also prayed for compensation for severance of land and loss of income. The Reference Court, vide its award dated 18.5.1992, enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,60,000/- per acre for 'chahi' kind of land. It was further ordered that the claimant- landowners shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and 12% per annum increase under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. It was further ordered that they shall also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent period till realization. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the State of Punjab has preferred these appeals. RFA No. 2684 of 1993 -3- I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellant and have gone through the record with his assistance. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Reference Court, in spite of there being two sale instances, Exhibits R-1 and R-2, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre, without considering the above sale instances. Learned counsel next submitted that in case Exhibits R-1 and R-2 could not be taken to be comparable instance then also there was no reason or any justification for giving increase in the market value at the rate of 12 per cent over and above the market value settled vide Exhibit A-2 and at the most 5 per cent increase was justified. On the strength of this submission, learned counsel prayed for reduction of the market value of the acquired land. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the State carries any weight and are, thus, rejected. The State had produced two sale transactions dated 27.7.1987, Exhibit R-1, and 20.8.1987, Exhibit R-2, pertaining to the same village. Pursuant to the former sale transaction, an area of 8 Kanals had been sold for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-, whereas vide the second sale transaction, Exhibit R-2, land measuring 2 Kanals was sold for an amount of Rs.3,000/- meaning thereby at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre. The Reference Court had further noticed that the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.60,000/- per acre and the transactions Exhibits R-1 and R-2, were not considered worth acceptance by him. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in RFA No. 2684 of 1993 -4- the reasoning adopted by the Reference Court. Therefore, these transactions cannot be guiding instances. On the other hand as regards the market value of the acquired land, two documents were produced on behalf of the land- owners, i.e. Exhibits A-1 and A-2. Exhibit A-1 is a copy of an award dated 8.2.1990 passed by the District Judge, Patiala, in relation to the land of village Bassian, acquired vide notification dated 7.10.1985, for the same purpose, i.e. construction of SYL Canal, wherein the District Judge had awarded compensation at the rates of Rs.1,25,000/-; Rs.75,000/- and Rs.55,000/- per acre in respect of 'chahi', 'barani' and 'banjar' kinds of land, respectively. The other document produced by the landowners was a copy of judgment dated 31.8.1989, Exhibit A-2 of this Court, whereby the market value in respect of the land of the same village acquired for the same purpose, vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 13.12.1982, was settled at the following rates: i) Land abutting on the either side of road connecting Rajpura with Chandigarh via Banur and Zirakpur up to the depth of 150 feet evaluated at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre; ii) Chahi land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre; iii) Gair Mumkin land at the rate of Rs.60,000/-. The Reference Court, while determining the market value of the acquired land primarily relied upon the judgment, dated 31.8.1989, Exhibit A-2 of this Court where, in respect of the land of the same village acquired pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 13.12.1982, this Court had awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- RFA No. 2684 of 1993 -5- per acre for 'chahi' kind of land. Since the acquisition in the instant case was of 5 years and 4 months later period, the Reference Court allowed 12% per annum increase, i.e. 60 per cent increase, over and above the market value settled by this Court in that matter vide Exhibit A-2, for five completed years ignoring the fraction of the year. In cases when no sale instances closer to the date of notifications are available, the instances of the past period, especially those closer to the date of notification and of the same village, can be taken note of for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land. While doing so, some guess work may be inevitable. It is not disputed that in respect of the land of the same village, this Court at an earlier point of time, vide judgment, Exhibit A-2, had determined the market value of Chahi land at the rate of rupees one lac per acre where the notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 13.12.1982. In the present case, the reference court had rightly placed reliance on Exhibit A-2. The primary question that now arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Reference Court was justified in allowing 12% per annum increase over and above market value settled vide Exhibit A- 2. The issue regarding annual increase to be allowed in case of instances prior to date of notification under Section 4 of the Act came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Versus Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 1558, wherein 10% increase every year was held to be reasonable in the following words: “After the deliberations on the contentions raised by RFA No. 2684 of 1993 -6- the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the appreciation of 10% per annum given for the subsequent years is neither excessive nor unreasonable so as to call for our interference.” In another pronouncement of the Apex Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and another, A.I.R. 2004 SC 2895, 15% per year increase was considered to be just and fair. It is, thus, not as a rule of law that only a fixed percentage should be adopted in all cases. The percentage of appreciation may vary depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the Reference Court allowed 12% per year increase which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be either excessive or unjust in any manner. The argument of the learned State Counsel for adopting 5% annual increase is not based on any rational basis and is, therefore, rejected. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. Since the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the Reference Court has been held to be just and fair, the cross-objections also stand dismissed. August 18, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) RKMalik/gbs JUDGE