GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 150 Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 721 to 741, 743 to 748, 763 to 766, 767, 768 to 773, 872, 882, to 891, 914 to 931, 969 to 973, 987 to 989, 1000, 1001, 1038 and 1047 of 1981 filed by the land owner-claimants and 377 to 381, 383, 385 to 391, 393, 397 to 399, 400, 401, 403, to 405, 407 410 to 415, 434 to 436, 438 to 440, 442, 446 to 449, 450, 453, 454, 456 to 458, 461, 463 to 467, 469 to 471, 474, 475, 477, 479 to 489, 491 and 492 of 1982 filed by the Union of India) are directed against the same judgment of the learned single Judge and are thus being disposed of together.

(2.) AN area measuring 1646 Kanals 2 Marlas of land situated in three revenue estates of villages Lande Ke, Dosanjh and Moga Mehla Singh, near Moga, a sub-divisional headquarter was requisitioned by the authorities for a public purpose on December 1, 1965. Later in exercise of its power under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) the Central Government acquired this land in pursuance of a notification published on February 4, 1972. The Land Acquisition Collector categorised this land into three blocks not essentially coinciding with the boundaries of the revenue estates for purposes of determining a fair compensation and fixed the rate of compensation primarily on the basis of the agricultural kind and quality of the land falling in different blocks. As the claimant did not feel satisfied with the adequacy of the compensation granted, they asked him to make a reference to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause (c) of sub-section (I) of Section 8 of the Act. The Arbitrator while maintaining the categorisation of land into above-noted three blocks enhanced the rate of compensation to some extent, Both the sides not feeling satisfied with this enhancement preferred appeals which as already pointed out, have been disposed of by the learned single Judge through a common judgment now under appeal. Vide this judgment, the appeal preferred by the Union of India were allowed to a limited extent that the solatium granted by the Arbitrator at the rate of 15 per cent of the market value was set aside and in all other respects the appeals were dismissed. The appeals of the claimants were allowed by giving a further raise in the rate of compensation. Once again, as already pointed out, both the sides have come up in appeal. While the Union of India makes a grouse of the enhancement ordered by the learned single Judge the land owner-claimants clamour for a further increase in the same.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the evidence on record, we find that the determination of the rate of compensation by the learned single Judge is well supported by the evidence and is well justified. Neither of the two sides has been able to point out any violation of any relevant principle which has to be taken care of while determining the market value of the acquired land nor do we find any infirmity in the approach or the appreciation of evidence on record. We thus dismiss the State appeals as of no merit.