STATE OF PUNJAB

PRIT AM SINGH ETC. ETC.

AUGUST 30, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Land Acquisition-Compensation-Quantum of-Appeal against- Held no inte1ference was called for as relevant material was not on record.

These appeals are preferred by the State of Punjab as it is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded for 25 acres of land acquired for ,- . establishment of grain market.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD : Practically, for large extent of land enhancement made by the Additional district Judge was reduced by the High Court from Rs. 90,000 Rs. 85,000 Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 75,000 per acre to Rs. 70,220 per acre.

The only c1uestion is of the lands for which Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 35,000 were awarded, which were enhanced to Rs. 70,220. As to the first part namely, E compensation of Rs. 65,000 per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 70,000, there is not much of difference. Though there is substantial difference for the second category, there is no material on record showing details of land covered by this part of the order. Therefore, no interference is called for with this part of the order of the High Court. (196-C-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1608-40 of 1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.79 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.F. A Nos. 1154-55176, 1208/77, 1242-49/77, 1404- 9/77, 1412-13, 1419 of 1977.

AS. Sohal and G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.

AK. Goel for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : 195 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Having seen the details of the facts and circumstances in these appeals we do not think that there is any substance for interference.

A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published acquiring 25 aGres and odd for public purpose, namely, for establishment of grain market. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award B dated February 18, 1972 awarded compensation at varying rates between Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 10,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge, in his award and decree dated May 3, 1976, enhanced compensation varying between Rs. 90.000 and Rs. 30,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court awarded on flat rate of Rs. 70,220 per acre. Being dissatisfied with C it, these appeals have been filed.

We have seen the judgment of the High Court. Practically, for large extent of land enhancement made by the Additional District Judge was reduced from Rs. 90,000, Rs. 85,000, Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 75,000 per acre to Rs. 70,220 per acre. The only question is of the lands for which Rs. 65,000 D and Rs. 35,000 were awarded, which were enhanced to Rs. 70,220. As to the first part namely, compensation of Rs. 65,000 per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 70,000, there is not much of difference. Though we find there is substantial difference for the second category, there is no material on record showing detail of lands covered by this part of the order. So, it.

E is difficult for this Court to decide whether interference with this part of the order of the High Court is called for.

Under these circumstances, the appeals are dismissed but without costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals dismissed.