RAMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals by the land owners and one appeal by the Municipal Corporation are respectively for enhancement and for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for acquisition of property after a notification dated 25.11.1981. The property acquired was 84 kanals 17 marlas of land for laying link road. The property acquired was in Basti Mithu, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The Collector had passed an award on 15.09.1986, which came to be amended subsequently on 13.10.1986 providing for Rs. 1,28,840/- per acre for Chahi and Rs. 1,06,830/- per acre for gair mumkin. The Reference Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 1400/- per marla with solatium and interest on additional amount. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners would argue that the respondent-Municipal Corporation placed no evidence either documentary or oral, and the case came to be decided only on the basis of documents filed by the land owners. The tabulation of sale transactions would require to be reproduced to get an immediate hang of the prices relating to the transactions:-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation would argue with reference to the rough plan that the period acquired was only an agricultural land and it was a small piece of land at the far end of the link road and it is the purpose of acquisition that lent value to the property as such and even the assessment made by the Reference Court is high.

(3.) I find that it is not denied that the property, which is acquired falls within the Municipal Corporation limits. The extent of properties, which are owned by the various owners, are themselves small. All the transactions of properties relating to Basti Mithu and the property adjoining are in respect of small parcels of land. The learned counsel appearing for the land owners would argue that where the acquired property falls within the municipal limits, it must be assumed that there had been already a development for residential and nonagricultural purposes and consequently the valuation itself must factor the imminent potentiality of the land for such use. I have no difficulty in accepting the contention that the property must be valued not merely as agricultural land and there is no better means of assessing the value than averaging the value of the properties during the relevant time. In Anjani Molu Desai v. State of Goa, 2011 3 RCR(Civ) 696, the Supreme Court held that in cases of several exemplars, usually highest exemplars should be considered and where the several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, it shall be safe to take average of such valuation. The Supreme Court, however, cautioned that the principle of averaging will not be resorted to where the sale prices are markedly different. 1 notice from the transactions of sales which are brought through Ex.P3 to P8 with the exception of Ex.P5 are in about the same range of 100 to 150 sq. yd. in the year 1980 and 105 to 160 per sq. yd in the year 1981. I would, therefore, apply the average of prices and take the appropriate valuation to be Rs. 3230/- per marla. The Reference Court relied on a price which the auction sale fetched in relation to property nearby and took the valuation at Rs. 1570/- per marla. There is no consistent line of authority for the position of whether an auction sale could be an appropriate exemplar. Several factors may come into play for the prices brought through competitive bids. When there are transactions of sales which have come about by private negotiation, they ought to be taken as the best bargain between the parties at arms length and even if an auction sale price could form the basis, I would invoke the rule in Anjani Molu Desai's case referring to the exigency of taking the highest price or take the average price to be more appropriate in this case.