Narinder Singh Vs. the State of Punjab Through the Land Acquisition Collector Colonisation Department - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 7. having given my thoughtful and deep consideration to the entire matter, i am of the firm view that despite high potentialities of the acquired land, it would not be safe to rely upon ex. however, in view of the high potentialities of the acquired land to which reference has been made above, it would be safe to take into consideration the three sale deeds i.naresh chander jain, j.1. by way of this judgment, i would be disposing rfa nos. 544, 545, 624 to 627, 733 to 740, 977, 978, 1716, 1717, 1814, 1815 of 1988 filed by the landowners seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation and rfa no. 913 to 933 of 1988 filed by the state of punjab praying for reduction in the compensation amount, as they arise out of common notification.2. the state of punjab by issuance of the notification dated 2.5.1980 under section 4 of the land acquisition act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the act') acquired land measuring 336 bighas 9-3/8 biswas situated in village bara, tehsil sirhind, district patiala, for establishment of new mandi township at sirhind. the land acquisition collector categorised the land into three. blocks a,b and c. the land falling in block a was evaluated at rs. 1,10,000/-, the land falling in block b was evaluated at rs. 90,000/- and the land falling in block c was assessed at rs. 70,000/- per acre vide his award dated 27th august, 1984. on reference under section 18 of act, at the instance of the landowners, the district judge, has determined the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate of rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the landowners and the state of punjab have come up in appeals before this court. the land acquisition court while assessing the market value of the acquired land at the aforementioned rate has not relied upon any sale deed. it would be seen from the perusal of the award that after referring to the entire oral and documentary evidence, the court determined the market value of the acquired land at rs. 1,50,000/- per acre.3. mr. m.l. sarin, sr. advocate, learned counsel for the landowners has argued that the district judge should have taken out the average of the sale price of the aforementioned sale deeds exhibits a3 to a6, a-10, a14 and a19 which are from the acquired land and after applying the necessary deduction in view of the smallness of the area, mentioned in the sale deeds, should have applied necessary cut and assessed the market value of the acquired land.4. before adverting to the sale deeds, it is necessary to take into consideration the potentialities of the acquired land. in fact, the potentialities of the land were not disputed during the course of arguments. it was not disputed at the bar even by the state counsel that the entire acquired land situated within the municipal limits of sirhind town as is shown in site plan ex.aw-6/1. the state counsel was not in a position to deny the correctness of the aforementioned site plan according to which g.t. road is situated on one side of the acquired land and on the other side of the acquired land, by pass road connecting sirhind town with the g.t. road was situated. in fact, it is evident from the site plan that the by pass connects g.t. road with sirhind town. even on g. t. road there were certain shops, workshops and petrol pumps near the acquired land. as has been rightly observed by the district judge, the inhabited area of sirhind town was not at a much distance from the acquired land. from the site plan, it is clear that the municipal limits extended beyond the acquired land towards rajpura side. in the light of high potentiality of the acquired land, this court is to see as to which sale deeds should be relied upon.5. having seen the potentiality of the acquired land, it is necessary to have a look at the sale deeds, brief chart of which is given below:------------------------------------------------------------------ sr. ex.no. date of area price price perno. no. sale sold paid acre.-----------------------------------------------------------------1. a-3 30.1.1980 1- 00 rs. 40,000/- rs. 1,92,000/-2. a-4 30.1.1980 0- 3 rs. 16,000/- rs. 5,12,000/-3. a-5 30.1.1980 3-0 rs. 48,000/- rs. 2,30,400/-4. a-6 30.1.1980 0- 2 rs. 12,000/- rs. 5,76,000/-5. a-10 19.3.1980 0- 4 rs. 10,000/- rs. 3,84,000/-6. a-14 2.2.1979 0-10 rs. 35,000/- rs. 3,36,000/-7. a-19 3.5.1973 0- 2 rs. 10,000/- rs. 4,80,000/------------------------------------------------------------------ 6. the aforementioned sale transactions are admittedly out of the acquired land. other sale deeds were also produced by the claimants which have been so mentioned in paragraph 23 of the award of the district judge but this court does not feel inclined to refer the same as they do not, admittedly, form part of the acquired land, and, therefore, in my considered view they are irrelevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired land.7. having given my thoughtful and deep consideration to the entire matter, i am of the firm view that despite high potentialities of the acquired land, it would not be safe to rely upon ex.a4, a10 and a19 as these sale deeds pertain to the sale of 3 biswas, 2 biswas, 4 biswas and 2 biswas respectively. however, in view of the high potentialities of the acquired land to which reference has been made above, it would be safe to take into consideration the three sale deeds i.e. exhibits a.3, a.5 and a.14 by virtue of which an area measuring 1 bigha each was sold by exhibit a.3 and a.5 and 10-biswas was sold by exh. a.14. in my considered view the average sale price of these three sale transactions can be taken out which comes to rs. 2,52,800/- and after applying the necessary cut of 1/3rd, the market value of the acquired land can be determined at rs. 1,68,534/- which can be rounded off at rs. 1,68,600/- per acre.8. before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to take into consideration the additional argument of mr. sarin which has been advanced in rfa no. 740 of 1988 jaswant kaur v. state of punjab. he has argued that the district judge has found in the award that the claimants in the aforementioned matter were entitled to the grant of rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation for the acquisition of their fruit trees etc. but they have been granted rs. 20,000/- only on the ground that they have claimed this much amount. the counsel has argued that it was a case of typing mistake and that in fact the claimants demanded a sum of rs. 2,00,000/-. be that as it may, the claimants in my view should be given that much compensation to which they have been found entitled to by the court and that they should not be bound down to the claim made by them in their pleadings. consequently, i allow rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation to the claimants in rfa no. 740 of 1988 for the acquisition of their fruit trees.9. for the reasons recorded above, the appeals of the landowners are allowed to the extent indicated above with proportionate costs. they are also entitled to the grant of statutory benefits of the amended provisions of sections 23(1a). 23(2) and 28 of the act. in consequence of the acceptance of the appeals of the landowners, the appeals filed by the state of punjab are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.