SHAM DASS Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine would dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 1636 and 1637 of 1965 as common question of law arises in both these petitions.

(2.) THE only point involved in these petitions relates to the valuation of the land sought to be purchased under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The valuation of the land is to be determined under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 which reads as under:--

(3.) MR. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that while determining the value of the land the average of the prices obtaining for similar land in the locality was to be taken into consideration. According to the learned counsel, the word 'land' indicated the various kinds of land, for example, Nehri, Chahi. Barani etc. and that it connoted only agricultural land. According to the learned counsel the average price of land which was agricultural in nature, and was somewhat like the land to be purchased, could be taken into consideration for determining the value. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the learned Financial commissioner erred in law in observing that while assessing the value of the land, the value of the plots sold by the Government was also to be taken into consideration. On the other hand Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the private respondents,. contended that value of any land situated in the locality could be taken into consideration while determining the value under sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act irrespective of the quality or kind of the land. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this court in Ram Ditta v. Financial Commr. 1964 Pun LJ 196.