BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By notification published on 15th October, 1970, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Punjab Acquired about 300 acres of land located in village Jamalpur Awana on the outsticks of Ludhiana town for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 21,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- per acre according to the agricultural quality of land. The claimants were not satisfied and sought references which came up for consideration before the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who by award dated 30th September, 1977, found that the acquired land had the potential for being used for urban purposes and, therefore, awarded the uniform rate of Rs. 28,000/- per acre. Still feeling dissatisfied, a large number of claimants came to the Court for claiming further enhancement of compensation. All the appeals were heard by a learned Single Judge and by judgment dated 17th July, 1980, the award of the learned Additional District Judge was maintained. Only one claimant has come up in this Letters Patent Appeal from claiming enhancement.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on an earlier decision of this Court in The Punjab State v. Baldev Singh, (R.F.A. No. 136 of 1974), decided on 5th May, 1977, where in for the acquisition of the same date and for the same purpose in the adjoining village Dhandari Kalan, the market value was allowed at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per acre, as also on instances Exhibits P.2, P.4 and P.9 for arriving at the figure of Rs. 28,000/- per acre. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) In passing, it may be noticed that a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge regarding the acquisition in this very village by notification dated 1st March, 1974. This appeal was also tagged on with those cases and that is how it was admitted to be heard along with these cases. If this appeal had come up for motion hearing separately, it may not have been admitted for regular hearing on the peculiar facts of this case.