BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these cases are connected and they are being taken up together. The properties are situate in two villages Sotha and Rupana. The appeals in RFA Nos.2585 to 2587 of 1991, 3212 of 1992, 313 to 327, 329 to 336, 399 of 1993 and 1765 of 1994 are at the instance of the State challenging the quantum of compensation, while the appeals in RFA Nos.29 to 42, 45, 161, 162 and 2335 of 1993 are at the instance of the landowners seeking for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The acquisition had been for the purpose of construction of Som nala of a total extent of 16 kanals 17 marlas. The notification under Section 4 had been made on 28.05.1985. The Collector had passed an award at Rs. 20,000/- per acre for nehri and Rs. 25,000/- for gair mumkin. The said amounts had been raised to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 55,000/- for nehri and gair mumkin respectively by the District Court. All these appeals relate to determination of compensation for the lands in Sotha and Rupana.

(3.) In relation to an appeal filed by the State for acquisition of land for the same purpose through the same notification in Punjab State Versus Niranjan Singh in RFA No.328 of 1983, decided on 16.12.2011, this Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the State for ascertainment of compensation made at Rs. 37,500/- per acre. The Court found that the subject matter of appeal was only for Rs. 4,123.45 and, therefore, it did not reappraise the issue but confined it only to the peculiar circumstance that the amount involved in dispute was very minimal. The Court held therefore that the appeal deserved to be dismissed without going to the merits of the controversy. The learned counsel for the State contends that when the property of the lands in Rupana and Sotha Villages were adjacent and admitted by the parties to have the same value, the determination of Rs. 35,000/- per acre ought to have been the only basis and it could not be @ Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 55,000/-. The learned counsel also points out that the decision of this Court dismissing the appeal in RFA No.328 of 1993, referred to above, itself show that Rs. 37,500/- per acre could alone be the basis for compensation in all the other cases also.