Chakas vs State Of Punjab & Ors

2. Question as to what would be proper, adequate, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the appellant for the land acquired by the respondent State, has once again cropped up for our consideration in this and the connected appeals.

4. It may be noted that for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.1578 of 2007 have been taken into account.

5. Short facts, shorn of unnecessary details are mentioned hereinbelow:

6. The matter was accordingly referred to the Additional District Judge, Patiala for working out the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant and other such similarly situated appellants. Both 5 the parties led evidence before the Reference Court.

1.5 lakh per acre, besides the individual claims made by land owners with regard to super structure, trees and other facilities available in their respective lands were also taken into consideration. The land owners were also held entitled for the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act.

7. Still not being satisfied with the amount of compensation so awarded to them, the land owners preferred appeals before the High Court under Section 54 of the Act, whereas the beneficiary respondent No. 3 herein the Corporation also preferred appeals purportedly, for reduction of the compensation awarded to the appellant. The Learned Single Judge heard the 6 matters together and disposed of by the common judgment and order, which is being impugned, once again by both sides on a variety of grounds.

According to us, the correct base price would be Rs.

Thus, the lands likely to be used towards roads, sewage and other such facilities would be minimum as most of the vacant land would be utilised by respondent No. 3 for its own benefits.

21. Needless to say, once the industry is set up, it would be for the financial benefit and gain of respondent No.3 year after year. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, respondent No. 3 - Corporation would be a great beneficiary at the cost of depriving the appellant - land owner of his sole livelihood of agriculture.

22. Therefore, it is neither desirable nor proper to deduct more than 10% of the amount in the base price fixed by us at Rs. 4,08,000/-. We accordingly do so.

Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made.

But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now use for generation of power and press mud is utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines.

24. In the light of the aforesaid contention and taking cue from the settled position of law decided by this Court in the aforesaid matters, we are of the firm opinion that the base price has to be fixed @ Rs.

This appeal and the connected appeals filed by land owners are hereby allowed and the appeals filed by respondent No.3 are dismissed.

25. The Reference Court is hereby directed to recalculate the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants and all such other land owners whose lands have been acquired in the light of the direction as contained hereinabove and to pay them the remainder amount within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order.

26. For the foregoing reasons, this and the connected appeals preferred by land owners are hereby allowed and those filed by the Corporation are dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel's fee quantified at Rs.

10,000/- in each Appeal.