Judgment:
RFA No.833 of 2013(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RFA No.833 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision May 4 , 2013 Punjab State through Secretary Govt.
of Punjab and others ......Petitioners Versus Bakhshish Kaur and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN Present:- Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the appellant.
**** K.
Kannan, J (oral).CM No.1643-CI of 2013 For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed.
Delay of 191 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RFA No.833 o”
1.
This order shall dispose of RFA Nos.833 to 838 of 2013 as all the appeals are connected.”
2. The appeal by the State is a challenge to the compensation assessed as excessive.
In the matter of determination of compensation payable, the Reference Court examined Ex.A-3 to A-5 filed by the land owner that showed the value of the property at `21,000/- and `30,000/- per Marla.
The State filed a document pertaining to the same village but the Court discarded the same holding that no evidence was given by the State as regards the location of the property or its proximity or otherwise to RFA No.833 of 2013(O&M) 2 the property acquired.
The Court also observed that quality of the land was not shown to be similar to the property which was acquired.
Considering the fact that the property was acquired for the purpose of strengthening a National High way in District Hoshiarpur and the location of the property where there were already existing houses and after constructions in the immediate vicinity of the property acquired, the Court held that the value of the property ought to be considered that reference to the potentiality for use for residential/commercial purpose.”
3. Learned counsel for the State urges that the property acquired was 50 Canal 17 Marlas but the reliance placed by the Reference Court was with reference to transactions which were small portions of 6 to 9 Marlas.
Learned counsel would argue that Ex.
A-4 and A-5 were actually transactions subsequent to Section 4 notification on 13.11.2007.”
4. I have considered the objection but I find that there is no scope for interference with the orders of the Reference Court.
Even if Ex.A-4 and A-5 were to be discarded Ex.A-3 was a transaction immediately prior to Section 4 notification and the value that was brought out in the document shows that the property was worth `21,111/-.
I find that even though Ex.A-4 and A-5 are both subsequent to the Section 4 notification, they have not registered any unusual spike in price but the increase has been gradual as if to suggest that the valuation brought out in Annexure A-4 and A-5 were fair representation of the market prices.
I cannot also accept the argument that the extent of property referred to in Ex.A-3 was grossly RFA No.833 of 2013(O&M) 3 small and therefore the said valuation could not have been adopted.
I find the acquisition of the property was itself for upgradation of National High Way and there were construction on either sides of the High Way already.
The property acquired within the proximity to the High way definitely required a different approach.
If the compensation assessed itself was only on the basis of Marla and the Collector had also adopted a valuation on the basis of Marla, it was only on account of the fact that the determination of value was required to be done on the basis that it had a potential for non-agricultural use.
The compensation assessed, in my view, is appropriate and just.
There is no scope for interference.
The appeals are dismissed.
(K.
KANNAN) JUDGE May 4 ,2013 archana