JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 19 Regular First Appeals and 2 cross objections have been preferred by the claimants, while 25 regular first appeals have been preferred by the State against the same judgment and award dated 1st February, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Ropar. Thus, these 46 appeals/cross objections arise from a common judgment and are based upon common premise of facts and law. So, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.

(2.) THE State of Punjab, issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act intending to acquire 83.76 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Batta, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar on 18th September, 1985 (incorrectly recorded in the impugned judgment/award as 12/13th September, 1985), in furtherance to which notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23rd September, 1985. Upon actual measurement, the acquired land was found to be 82.24 acres. This land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, construction of SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector after following due process, vide his award No. 77 dated 28th March, 1986 awarded the following compensation to the claimants while categorising the land into two different groups. The claimants were totally dis -satisfied with the extent of the amount of compensation awarded to them and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. 25 references were preferred which were disposed of by the learned District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment and award dated 1st February, 1991 where the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 90,000/ - per acre while removing the categorisation of the respective lands. In addition thereto in LAC No. 222 of 1989, the learned Judge awarded 25% as compensation payable for severance.

(3.) AS far as the respondents are concerned, sale deeds Ex.R.1 and R.2 are not admissible in evidence because the respondents did not examine either the vendor or the vendee to prove the authenticity of the documents and the genuineness of the consideration paid thereunder. Thus, the only admissible, evidence whatever may be its worth is Ex.R.3 (Aks -shijra). Though Ex. R. 1 and Ex.R.2 are the sale deeds relating to the land of the same village from where the land has been acquired, but they have no evidentiary value. For the same reason Ex.P.6 and P.7, the sale deeds tendered in evidence by the petitioners are also inadmissible though they also relate to the same village. What really remains with the Court as acceptable evidence are the judgments Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. The details of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 are produced hereunder: -