NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment I propose to dispose of 19 regular first appeals and cross objections preferred by the parties against the judgment and award of the learned reference Court dated 22.7.1993. State has filed 10 appeals against this judgment while the claimants have filed 8 appeals and one cross objection in one of the appeal preferred by the State. All these appeals arise from the same judgment and are based upon common evidence and record. As such it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals together.

(2.) GOVERNMENT of State of Punjab on 30.3.1988 in its official gazette published a notification dated 21.3.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Vide this notification the State acquired 14.12 acres of land in village Chilla, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. In furtherance thereto notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.4.1988. The land was acquired for construction of lower branch canal in the main SYL project. The Land Acquisition Collector after following the due process of law vide his award dated 20.2.1990 categorised the acquired land into three different categories and awarded the following compensation to the owners of the land : Chahi/Abi Rs. 34699/- per acre. Barani Rs. 31862/- per acre. Mumkin Rs. 31862/- per acre.

(3.) ACCORDING to the State the compensation already awarded to the claimants is on the higher side and they pray for restoration of the award of the Collector. For proper appreciation of these rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties it is important for this Court to refer to the gist of evidence produced by the parties before the learned reference Court. The claimants only examined one witness PW1 Ram Rakha Singh, who referred to the value and location of the land. They produced on record Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, the sale deeds and Ex.P4 and P5 the award/judgments of the Court. Respondents only tendered in evidence Ex.R.1, the site plan. No other oral or documentarly evidence was led by the respondents.