BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Punjab Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 15th March, 1976 intending to acquire land for public purpose i.e. for establishment of grain market at Ferozepur City. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17th March, 1976. Urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act was invoked and the possession of the land was taken on 25th March, 1976. On 17th December, 1976, Land Acquisition Collector gave his award fixing the market value at Rs. 154/- per marla which comes to Rs. 24,640/- per acre. The claimants being dissatisfied with the compensation, preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge, for enhancement. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000/- per acre vide his award dated 1st June, 1978. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have come to this Court and have claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre as compensation.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Claimants have placed reliance on two sale transactions Exhibits PA and A/2. The first sale was of 7 kanals 1-1/2 marlas for Rs. 43,000/- whereas the subsequent sale was for Rs. 46,000/- which comes to Rs. 48,149/- per acre and Rs. 51,200/- per acre. The sale deeds were executed and registered on 1st March, 1976 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 15th March, 1976 i.e. only fifteen days prior to the acquisition of land. The trial Court had come to a finding that the land under acquisition had a potential value as there was all round development in the vicinity where the land under acquisition was situated. The acquired land was within the municipal limits and for the last few years constructions had been coming up, a cold storage and a cinema had been constructed at a distance of 300/400 yards. Residential houses had also come up nearby. I agree with the finding of the District Judge regarding potential value of the land under acquisition. The District Judge rejected the instance of mutations produced by the State for fixing the market value and in my view, rightly.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the District Judge fell into error in fixing the compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per acre in spite of the two sale transactions Exhibits PA and A/2 which were nearest to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and were only 500/700 yards away from the land under acquisition. Learned counsel argued that although they had claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre as compensation but in any case, the compensation could not be less than Rs. 50,000/- per acre. I agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The land under these two sale instances Exhibit PA and A/2 is, no doubt removed away by 500/700 yards from the acquired land but keeping in view the fact that the land under acquisition was within the municipal limits and potential value because of a cinema, cold storage and other residential buildings having come up in the vicinity, there was no justification for restricting the claim to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Under the circumstances, it is held that the District Judge fixed the compensation inadequately. The claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- per acre keeping in view the sale transactions Exhibits PA and A/2. Learned counsel for the appellants could not make out a case for the increase of compensation beyond Rs. 50,000/- per acre as there is no evidence which can lead to the conclusion that the market value of the land under acquisition was more than Rs. 50,000/-. Except the two sale deeds Exhibits PA and A/2 there is no other instance which can further the cause of the claimants although they had claimed by Rs. 1,92,000/- per acre as compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector but had restricted their claim to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre in this Court.