RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Punjab issued Notification dated 26.4.1978 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquiring the land measuring 5971 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Wadala Bhitewind, Tehsil and District Amritsar. In furtherance thereof, the Government issued Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 17.3.1981. This land was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for utilisation of the land by the Ministry of Defence, Union of India. The Land Acquisition Collector, vie his award dated 22.6.1983, categorised the land into four categories i.e. Chahi, Nahri, Barani, Banjar Quadim and gair mumkin awarding Rs. 16,500/-, Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per acre, respectively, to the owners of the land, whose land had been acquired, depending upon the nature of the land owned by the respective claimants.

(2.) 22 claimants preferred land references under Section 18 of the Act praying for enhancement of awarded compensation. The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated 11.9.1992, answered all these references and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 39,000/- per acre irrespective of the kind of the land acquired, of course in addition thereto the claimants were granted statutory benefits.

(3.) 20 claimants have preferred regular first appeals impugning the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, and prayed for further enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them. On the other hand, the State Government has come up in appeal in all 22 references praying for restoration of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, as it is contended on behalf of the State that there is no reasonable basis for enhancement of compensation awarded to them. On the other hand, the State Government has come up in appeal in all 22 references praying for restoration of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, as it is contended on behalf of the State that there is no reasonable basis for enhancement of compensation in question.