The State of Punjab Through Land Acquisition Collector Syl Canal Project Vs. Dwarki Devi (Since Deceased) Through Her Lrs and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1156486
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-11-2014
AppellantThe State of Punjab Through Land Acquisition Collector Syl Canal Project
RespondentDwarki Devi (Since Deceased) Through Her Lrs and Others
Excerpt:
rfa no.2976 of 1992 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh (1) rfa no.2976 of 1992. decided on:-july 11th, 2014. the state of punjab through land acquisition collector, syl canal project, punjab, patiala. .........appellant. versus kartar singh and another .........respondents. (2) rfa no.2977 of 1992. the state of punjab through land acquisition collector, syl , patiala. .........appellant. versus dwarki devi (since deceased) through her lrs and others .........respondents. (3) cross-objections no.34-ci of 2013 in rfa no.2977 of 1992. the state of punjab through land acquisition collector, syl , patiala. .........appellant. versus dwarki devi (since deceased) through her lrs and others .........respondents/cross-objectors. ***** yag dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rfa no.2976 of 1992 -2- coram: hon'ble mr. justice dr. bharat bhushan parsoon. argued by:- mr. karandeep singh deswal, dy. advocate general, punjab for the appellant. none for the respondents/cross-objectors. dr. bharat bhushan parsoon, j.two appeals referred to earlier in the title are from the state of punjab. cross-objections by the landowners and their legal heirs are in one of these appeals i.e. in rfa no.2977 of 1992.2. land for the construction of pamour distributary was acquired by the appellant-state pursuant to notification dated 12.3.1987 under the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter mentioned as the act). it was of village sottal. land of the respondents in both these appeals had also been acquired. as per award dated 30.7.1987, the land acquisition collector (for short, the collector) had awarded compensation of the acquired land, at the following rates: chahi. rs.62,000/- per acre. barani. rs.50,000/- per acre. gair mumkin. rs.35,000/- per acre.3. aggrieved with this award and claiming that the collector did not take into consideration the potential value of the land particularly when the same abuts the kharar-sirhind road, compensation was claimed @ rs.2 lacs per acre. in addition, compensation for mango trees, poplar trees and kikar trees was also sought.4. these applications moved by the claimants were taken up under section 18 of the act for adjudication as references under the act, wherein the respondent-state had asserted that fair and suitable compensation had yag dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rfa no.2976 of 1992 -3- been awarded, disclosing further that the award relating to trees and structure had been announced separately by the collector.5. for the reasons that the cross-objections have been preferred in rfa no.2977 of 1992 as also for convenience and clarity, further facts are being taken from rfa no.2977 of 1992.6. land acquired for the construction of pamour distributary pertains to village sotal. claimant parkash chand (pw1) had made sweeping statement that the acquired land was located on kharar-bassi metalled road and was chahi land. he also made assertion that there were mango, poplar and kikar trees on the land.7. when version of the claimant sweepingly repeated by him in his general terms could not be supported by any corroborative oral or documentary evidence, the reference court referred to other evidence brought on record i.e. judgment of 8.6.1990 rendered by another reference court. it was pertaining to the same village. yet another judgment titled the state of punjab versus surjan singh etc. 1990(1) plr278pertaining to village pilwal, tehsil rajpura wherein land had been acquired for construction of syl canal, had also been considered.8. taking into account the entire perspective in view, the claimants were held entitled for enhancement of compensation on the valuation of the land, assessed as under: chahi land. rs.1,00,000/- per acre. barani land. rs.75,000/- per acre. banjar land. rs.65,000/- per acre. gair mumkin land. rs.60,000/- per acre.9. whereas the appellant-state has sought reduction in assessment of value of the land claiming that evidence led by the appellant-state had not yag dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rfa no.2976 of 1992 -4- been considered whereas evidence of the respondents was given undue importance, it is claimed that the land does not have any commercial or industrial potentiality. averring the impugned judgment of the reference court to be based on conjectures and surmises, it is asserted that the compensation awarded by the collector was just and proper and did not call for any enhancement.10. there is no representation from the respondents/cross-objectors. their plea is for enhancement of compensation to the tune of rs.2 lacs per acre. compensation qua trees has also been claimed. it is averred that though the land has urban potential but facts and circumstances of the case were not properly appreciated by the reference court causing prejudice to the cross- objectors.11. hearing has been provided to the counsel for the appellant-state while going through the paper books.12. claim of the appellant-state of punjab is that the evidence produced by the landowners has been considered but no evaluation has been made of the evidence produced by the appellant-state. this plea of the appellant is not correct. record reveals that the appellant-state had produced instances of two sales in support of which they had produced copy ex.r1 of sale deed of sale of 7 kanal 12 marlas of land of rs.38,000/- and vide copy ex.r2 of yet another sale deed, 15 marlas of land had been sold for rs.3,750/-. since both these instances cited by the appellant-state had not been found to be depicting market value of the land as was reported before the collector and even the collector had given higher rate of compensation. these were taken to be of no probative value. these instances of sale being below the market value adjudicated by the collector have rightly been left out of consideration by the reference court.13. since judgment ex.p1 dated 8.6.1990 rendered by the yag dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rfa no.2976 of 1992 -5- additional district judge, ropar pertaining to adjudication of reference under section 18 of the act of acquisition of land of this very village had been cited by the landowners, this was an important piece of evidence before the reference court. similarly, a matter decided by this court regarding enhancement of compensation of a neighbouring village namely polwal, tehsil rajpura where the land was acquired for construction of syl canal was also appropriately considered by the reference court.14. counsel for the appellant-state has not been able to point out any error in the impugned award where judgment ex.p1 was considered or in another adjudication made by this court in a reported judgment of the state of punjab versus surjan singh etc. 1990(1) p.l.r.278. referring to judgment ex.r1 of 8.6.1990 and adjudication made by this court as mentioned earlier and on close appreciation and evaluation of the entire evidence, the reference court had fixed the rates of compensation on different types of land as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment.15. the adjudication made by the reference court being correct on facts as also in law is upheld.16. now adjudication is being made of rfa no.2977 of 1992 and cross-objections made therein.17. though none has appeared on behalf of the cross-objectors but in the cross-objections, reference has been made to a decision rendered by this court on 26.11.2008 in rfa no.2267 of 1990 titled gurdev singh (deceased) through his l.rs versus state of punjab. on perusal of this judgment, it transpires that vide notification dated 18.9.1985, land of the same village i.e. sotal, tehsil kharar, district ropar was acquired for construction of syl canal and compensation of the acquired land was determined by this court in the following manner: chahi land. rs.2,00,000/- per acre. yag dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document rfa no.2976 of 1992 -6- barani land. rs.1,60,000/- per acre. gair mumkin land. rs.1,20,000/- per acre. the aforesaid judgment was followed by this court in another rfa no.1735 of 1991 titled smt. dwarki devi and others versus the state of punjab decided on 18.8.2010.18. it is relevant to mention here that even in the judgment rendered by the reference court which is impugned in this appeal pertains to the same village and rather is of notification of later date i.e. 12.3.1987 whereas the notification in the cited judgment is of 18.9.1985. contention of counsel for the appellant-state that the judgments cited by the cross-objectors are of no relevance is, thus, of no merit. rather, the judgments rendered in the regular first appeals referred to in the cross-objections pertain to notification of 18.9.1985 i.e. of earlier date than the present notification and thus, are very well applicable.19. keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, both the appeals filed by the state are dismissed while cross-objections in rfa no.2977 of 1992 are accepted in terms of decision of this court rendered in rfa no.2267 of 1990 titled gurdev singh (deceased) through his l.rs versus state of punjab. (dr. bharat bhushan parsoon) judge july 11th, 2014 'yag dutt' 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. whether to be referred to the reporters or not?.3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. yag dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

RFA No.2976 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) RFA No.2976 of 1992. Decided on:-July 11th, 2014. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Punjab, Patiala. .........Appellant. Versus Kartar Singh and another .........Respondents. (2) RFA No.2977 of 1992. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, SYL , Patiala. .........Appellant. Versus Dwarki Devi (since deceased) through her LRs and others .........Respondents. (3) Cross-Objections No.34-CI of 2013 in RFA No.2977 of 1992. The State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, SYL , Patiala. .........Appellant. Versus Dwarki Devi (since deceased) through her LRs and others .........Respondents/Cross-objectors. ***** Yag Dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No.2976 of 1992 -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON. Argued by:- Mr. Karandeep Singh Deswal, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondents/cross-objectors. Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Two appeals referred to earlier in the title are from the State of Punjab. Cross-objections by the landowners and their legal heirs are in one of these appeals i.e. in RFA No.2977 of 1992.

2. Land for the construction of Pamour distributary was acquired by the appellant-State pursuant to notification dated 12.3.1987 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act). It was of village Sottal. Land of the respondents in both these appeals had also been acquired. As per Award dated 30.7.1987, the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) had awarded compensation of the acquired land, at the following rates: Chahi. Rs.62,000/- per acre. Barani. Rs.50,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin. Rs.35,000/- per acre.

3. Aggrieved with this Award and claiming that the Collector did not take into consideration the potential value of the land particularly when the same abuts the Kharar-Sirhind road, compensation was claimed @ Rs.2 lacs per acre. In addition, compensation for mango trees, poplar trees and Kikar trees was also sought.

4. These applications moved by the claimants were taken up under Section 18 of the Act for adjudication as references under the Act, wherein the respondent-State had asserted that fair and suitable compensation had Yag Dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No.2976 of 1992 -3- been awarded, disclosing further that the Award relating to trees and structure had been announced separately by the Collector.

5. For the reasons that the cross-objections have been preferred in RFA No.2977 of 1992 as also for convenience and clarity, further facts are being taken from RFA No.2977 of 1992.

6. Land acquired for the construction of Pamour distributary pertains to village Sotal. Claimant Parkash Chand (PW1) had made sweeping statement that the acquired land was located on Kharar-Bassi metalled road and was Chahi land. He also made assertion that there were mango, poplar and Kikar trees on the land.

7. When version of the claimant sweepingly repeated by him in his general terms could not be supported by any corroborative oral or documentary evidence, the reference court referred to other evidence brought on record i.e. judgment of 8.6.1990 rendered by another reference court. It was pertaining to the same village. Yet another judgment titled The State of Punjab Versus Surjan Singh etc. 1990(1) PLR278pertaining to village Pilwal, Tehsil Rajpura wherein land had been acquired for construction of SYL canal, had also been considered.

8. Taking into account the entire perspective in view, the claimants were held entitled for enhancement of compensation on the valuation of the land, assessed as under: Chahi land. Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. Barani land. Rs.75,000/- per acre. Banjar land. Rs.65,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin land. Rs.60,000/- per acre.

9. Whereas the appellant-State has sought reduction in assessment of value of the land claiming that evidence led by the appellant-State had not Yag Dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No.2976 of 1992 -4- been considered whereas evidence of the respondents was given undue importance, it is claimed that the land does not have any commercial or industrial potentiality. Averring the impugned judgment of the reference court to be based on conjectures and surmises, it is asserted that the compensation awarded by the Collector was just and proper and did not call for any enhancement.

10. There is no representation from the respondents/cross-objectors. Their plea is for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs per acre. Compensation qua trees has also been claimed. It is averred that though the land has urban potential but facts and circumstances of the case were not properly appreciated by the reference court causing prejudice to the cross- objectors.

11. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the appellant-State while going through the paper books.

12. Claim of the appellant-State of Punjab is that the evidence produced by the landowners has been considered but no evaluation has been made of the evidence produced by the appellant-State. This plea of the appellant is not correct. Record reveals that the appellant-State had produced instances of two sales in support of which they had produced copy Ex.R1 of sale deed of sale of 7 Kanal 12 Marlas of land of Rs.38,000/- and vide copy Ex.R2 of yet another sale deed, 15 Marlas of land had been sold for Rs.3,750/-. Since both these instances cited by the appellant-State had not been found to be depicting market value of the land as was reported before the Collector and even the Collector had given higher rate of compensation. These were taken to be of no probative value. These instances of sale being below the market value adjudicated by the Collector have rightly been left out of consideration by the reference court.

13. Since judgment Ex.P1 dated 8.6.1990 rendered by the Yag Dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No.2976 of 1992 -5- Additional District Judge, Ropar pertaining to adjudication of reference under Section 18 of the Act of acquisition of land of this very village had been cited by the landowners, this was an important piece of evidence before the reference court. Similarly, a matter decided by this Court regarding enhancement of compensation of a neighbouring village namely Polwal, Tehsil Rajpura where the land was acquired for construction of SYL canal was also appropriately considered by the reference court.

14. Counsel for the appellant-State has not been able to point out any error in the impugned Award where judgment Ex.P1 was considered or in another adjudication made by this Court in a reported judgment of The State of Punjab Versus Surjan Singh etc. 1990(1) P.L.R.278. Referring to judgment Ex.R1 of 8.6.1990 and adjudication made by this Court as mentioned earlier and on close appreciation and evaluation of the entire evidence, the reference court had fixed the rates of compensation on different types of land as mentioned in earlier part of this judgment.

15. The adjudication made by the reference court being correct on facts as also in law is upheld.

16. Now adjudication is being made of RFA No.2977 of 1992 and cross-objections made therein.

17. Though none has appeared on behalf of the cross-objectors but in the cross-objections, reference has been made to a decision rendered by this Court on 26.11.2008 in RFA No.2267 of 1990 titled Gurdev Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs Versus State of Punjab. On perusal of this judgment, it transpires that vide notification dated 18.9.1985, land of the same village i.e. Sotal, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was acquired for construction of SYL canal and compensation of the acquired land was determined by this Court in the following manner: Chahi land. Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. Yag Dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RFA No.2976 of 1992 -6- Barani land. Rs.1,60,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin land. Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in another RFA No.1735 of 1991 titled Smt. Dwarki Devi and others Versus The State of Punjab decided on 18.8.2010.

18. It is relevant to mention here that even in the judgment rendered by the reference court which is impugned in this appeal pertains to the same village and rather is of notification of later date i.e. 12.3.1987 whereas the notification in the cited judgment is of 18.9.1985. Contention of counsel for the appellant-State that the judgments cited by the cross-objectors are of no relevance is, thus, of no merit. Rather, the judgments rendered in the regular first appeals referred to in the cross-objections pertain to notification of 18.9.1985 i.e. of earlier date than the present notification and thus, are very well applicable.

19. Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, both the appeals filed by the State are dismissed while cross-objections in RFA No.2977 of 1992 are accepted in terms of decision of this Court rendered in RFA No.2267 of 1990 titled Gurdev Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs Versus State of Punjab. (Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon) Judge July 11th, 2014 'Yag Dutt' 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. Yag Dutt 2014.07.17 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document