Case: M/S Gurugobind Singh Refineries Ltd Vs. Punjab State &amp; Ors.Etc.Etc

not have been fixed for a small portion of the land on the ground that it is near the metalled road and could fetch higher market value. Learned Senior Counsel then argued that the sale deeds produced by the land owners were not at all relevant for fixing market value of the acquired land because the same related to very small parcels of land measuring 8 to 1 kanal or even less. Mr. Gupta produced a compilation of papers to show that Gair Mumkin land situated in and near the Abadi can fetch higher market value and argued that the same cannot be made basis for awarding higher compensation for other categories of land. 12. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Counsel for the land owners argued that the entries made in the Jamabandis and other revenue records, which were based on the settlement operations carried out many decades ago do not reflect true nature of the land as on the date of acquisition and, as such, those entries could not have been relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector for fixing market value of the acquired land. Learned Counsel emphasized that due to availability of irrigation facilities i.e., canals and tube wells, the quality of the land in Phulokhari, Kanakwal, Ramsra and Raman has altogether changed in last 20 years and the Reference Court did not commit any error by clubbing Barani and tube well irrigated land with Nehri/Chahi land for fixing market value of such land. Learned Counsel then argued that Gair Mumkin land is not superior to Nehri/Chahi, Barani and tube well irrigated land and when the State Government has itself fixed market value of Gair Mumkin land at Rs. 5 lacs per acre, the Reference Court should have awarded compensation for the entire land at least at the rate of Rs. 5 lacs per acre. Learned Counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of remand passed by the High Court, then the Reference Court should be directed to decide all the issues afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to produce additional evidence. In the end, the learned Counsel submitted that the land owners may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the Company in furtherance of the conditional interim order dated 12.5.2006 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8386/2006. He pointed out that even though the land owners had applied to the Reference Court for withdrawal of the amount, necessary orders were not passed by the concerned Court because of the stiff resistance put up by the Counsel for the Company. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the Company seriously opposed the last mentioned request of the land owners’ Counsel and submitted that his client should be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited in compliance of the direction given by this Court because by virtue of the judgment of the High Court, the award passed by the Reference Court has become non est and the land owners cannot derive any benefit from the same.. 14. We have considered the respective submissions. The reasons recorded by the High Court for remanding the case to the Reference Court for deciding the issue of clubbing the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well irrigated land do not appear to be flawed. In our view, the Reference Court was not justified in deciding the issue relating to fixation of market value of the acquired land by presuming that irrigation facilities are available throughout the State of Punjab either through canals or through tube wells. The Reference Court should have referred to the substantive evidence produced by the parties and then decided whether it was just and proper to club the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well irrigated land. Therefore, we do not find any error in the direction given by the High Court to the Reference Court to decide issue relating to clubbing of different categories of land.15. However, we are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the land owners that the High Court should have ordered an open remand so as to enable the parties to lead additional evidence on all the issues including the belting of land and fixation of market value at a flat rate keeping in view the rate fixed by the State Government for Gair Mumkin land. What is the extent of land falling within 500 metres of the metalled road and whether such land can fetch higher price in the market are questions which can be decided only after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Likewise, the questions whether the entire Gair Mumkin land i.e., 281 kanals 9 marlas is in Abadi and market value thereof can be made basis for fixing market value of other categories of land or higher market value fixed by the State Government for Gair Mumkin land would supply basis for grant of higher compensation in respect of other lands are required to be decided after considering the evidence which may be produced by the parties. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice if the Reference Court is directed to decide all the issues afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence.16. We shall now deal with the question of withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Company in compliance of order dated 12.5.2006 passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 8386 of 2006. A reading of order dated 24.4.2008 by which the special leave petitions filed by the Company against the High Court’s refusal to stay the award of the Reference Court were disposed of by this Court shows that liberty was given to the land owners to withdraw the amount on furnishing appropriate security to be fixed by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the Company did not seek modification of that order. Therefore, we do not find any justification to pass an order which may run contrary order dated 24.4.2008.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. We have considered the respective submissions. The reasons recorded by the High Court for remanding the case to the Reference Court for deciding the issue of clubbing the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well irrigated land do not appear to be flawed. In our view, the Reference Court was not justified in deciding the issue relating to fixation of market value of the acquired land by presuming that irrigation facilities are available throughout the State of Punjab either through canals or through tube wells. The Reference Court should have referred to the substantive evidence produced by the parties and then decided whether it was just and proper to club the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well irrigated land. Therefore, we do not find any error in the direction given by the High Court to the Reference Court to decide issue relating to clubbing of different categories of land.15. However, we are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the land owners that the High Court should have ordered an open remand so as to enable the parties to lead additional evidence on all the issues including the belting of land and fixation of market value at a flat rate keeping in view the rate fixed by the State Government for Gair Mumkin land. What is the extent of land falling within 500 metres of the metalled road and whether such land can fetch higher price in the market are questions which can be decided only after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Likewise, the questions whether the entire Gair Mumkin land i.e., 281 kanals 9 marlas is in Abadi and market value thereof can be made basis for fixing market value of other categories of land or higher market value fixed by the State Government for Gair Mumkin land would supply basis for grant of higher compensation in respect of other lands are required to be decided after considering the evidence which may be produced by the parties. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice if the Reference Court is directed to decide all the issues afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce additional evidence.16. We shall now deal with the question of withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Company in compliance of order dated 12.5.2006 passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 8386 of 2006. A reading of order dated 24.4.2008 by which the special leave petitions filed by the Company against the Highrefusal to stay the award of the Reference Court were disposed of by this Court shows that liberty was given to the land owners to withdraw the amount on furnishing appropriate security to be fixed by the trial Court. It is not in dispute that the Company did not seek modification of that order. Therefore, we do not find any justification to pass an order which may run contrary order dated 24.4.2008.