PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of 16 connected Regular First Appeals 1030, 1031, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1527, 1528, 1529, 1556, 1557, 1559, 2160, 2162 of 1984 and 1354, 1355 of 1985, which arise out of the acquisition of a large area of land for Ropar Thermal Plant.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the Government of Punjab through various notifications published on June 1 and 21, 1979, April 23, 1979; December 30, 1980; January 23 and May 4, 1981 acquired land for Ropar Thermal Plant project. These notifications were followed by declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , passed on various dates. The Land Acquisition Collector had passed three sets of awards on July 24, October 30, 1981 and July 17, 1982. The collector awarded compensation at the rates of Rs. 5750/- for Gair Mumkin land and upto Rs. 14375/- for Chahi land under all the awards in respect of all the notifications mentioned above. On reference, District Judge, Ropar enhanced the compensation from Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for some lands and from Rs. 12650/- to Rs. 23,000/- for other pieces of land. The present appeals have been filed by the Punjab State Electricity Board against the enhancement of compensation made by the District Judge, Ropar on different dates which are January 18, March 1, April 11, May 3 and 5, September 3, 1984 and May 2, 1985. Regular First Appeal 1559 of 1984 has been filed by Ram Rakha seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the judgment of the learned District Judge enhancing the compensation was against evidence on record and he has acted illegally by rejecting the instances of alienation relied upon by the claimants and the Board, after which there was no alternative for him but to uphold the award of the Collector. The instances relied upon by the Board were rejected on the ground that if these were accepted then the compensation would work out even less than awarded by the Collector. Reliance by the Court on the award passed earlier on January 13, 1984 was said to be improper. That award had been challenged before this Court through R.F.A. 1036 of 1984 entitled the Land Acquisition Collector v. Bhag Singh and Others. Since the award was already under challenge, no reliance should have been placed on that award.