KEHAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of ours would dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 88, 227 to 234 and 279 to 286 of 1984 as they arise out of common notification and common judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) IN pursuance of a notification dated 1-4-1976 published on 9-4-1976 in the official gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired 550 Bighas and 5 Biswas of land equivalent to 116. 30 acres situated within the municipal limits of Bhatinda for a public purpose, namely, for water supply scheme prepared by the State and the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda. Later on, another purpose, namely 'rose. garden' was also added to. The Land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 20-3-1979 assessed the market value of the acquired land abutting on Bhatinda-Barnala Road upto a depth of 100 yards at the rate of Rupees 50,000/- per acre and the rest of the land was evaluated at Rupees 15,000/- per acre. The land-owners felt dissatisfied with the Award of the Collector and sought references under Section 18 of the Act. On reference, the Additional District Judge instead of maintaining two belts created three belts and determined the market value of the acquired land at the following rates :

(3.) MR. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant claimants has in the first instance argued that this Court should rely upon the sale deeds which have taken place before the issuance of the notification and, in any case, such sale deeds must be relied upon which are out of the acquired land. The argument does not carry conviction. The perusal of the sale deeds and the chart given by the learned Single Judge clearly shows that all the sale transactions pertain to small areas of land which cannot be said to be comparable vis-a-vis the acquired land which runs into 558 Bighas and 5 Biswas equivalent to 116. 30 acres. This Court in view of the smallness of the areas sold is disinclined to place any reliance upon the sale transactions besides the other reasonings given by the Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge with which this court concur.