JAI KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of RFA Nos. 466 to 480, 503, 550, 600, 630 to 650, 688 to 696, 903, 1518 to 1525, 1527 to 1531, 1533 to 1536 to 1557, 1559 to 1560, 1562, 1564 to 1566, 1568 to 1570, 1572 to 1575, 1577, 1579 to 1589, 1587 to 1591, 1593 to 1598, and 1715 arising out of the same award of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, fixing compensation for the land acquired. Some of the appeals have been filed sic.

(2.) 115 Acres 5 Kanals 14 Marlas of land of village Kotkapura was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for establishment of New Mandi Township, Kotkapura. Notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued on May 5, 1982. Notice under section 6 of the Act was issued on January 19, 1984. The Collector announced the Award on February 22, 1984, fixing market value of the acquired land, adopting the belt system. For, Block 'A' the value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre; for Block 'B' at the rate of Rs. 52,00/- per acre and for Block 'C' at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. They moved different references under Section 18 of the Act which were ultimately consolidated and evidence was recorded in Land Acquisition Case No. 43 of 1985 (Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab). The Additional District Judge, faridkot, disposed of all the references by the judgment date November 20, 1987,assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,01,000/- per acre. To some of the claimants, compensation was also allowed for the super structure. The claimants were also allowed solatium and interest under the provisions of the Act as amended in 1984. Against the aforesaid judgment, in all 124 appeals have been filed; 55 appeals have been filed by the claimants and 69 appeals have been filed by the State, which are being disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) The District Judge, after referring to the evidence produced in the case, held that the acquired land had great potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. In para 8 of the judgment, he observed as under:-