GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for brevity 'the Act') challenges order dated 6.6.1985 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra. The Addl. District Judge has enhanced the compensation of the land of the claimant-appellants while deciding their application received by reference under S. 18 of the Act from the Collector Land Acquisition. The Collector had awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre and solatium @ 15 percent. However, the Collector did not allow any interest as the land in dispute was lying vacant and possession was sought to be taken after the award.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that in order to establish Sub Divisional Complex respondent State issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 5.12.1980 for acquiring land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas situated in village Salimpur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kurukshetra. The nature of the whole land described in the revenue record was Nehri and the Collector vide his award dated 21.4.1982 awarded compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre with solatium @ 15 percent. However, no interest was awarded because the land was lying vacant and possession of the land was sought to be taken after the award. The claimant-appellants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act claiming that market value of the land was not less than Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was claimed that the land was situated on Guhla Cheeka road and that there were public buildings near this land. The land had the potentials for being used for commercial purposes.

(3.) LD . Addl. District Judge discarded the sale transaction Ex.P.2 for the reasons that it relates to the post-notification period. The sale deed is dated 22.12.1983 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.12.1980. The other sale deed dated 27.5.1980 Ex.P.1 has been discarded on the ground that it was not genuine and in all probabilities exorbitant sale consideration was mentioned in the sale deed either with the oblique motive of scaring away the prospective pre-emptors or the claimants- appellants might have come to know that the land was likely to be acquired for the construction of Sub Divisional Complex. Support was also sought from the fact that Raghunath Rai was himself a petition-writer and might have got recorded a fictitious/exaggerated sale consideration. However, ld. Addl. District Judge placed heavy reliance on sale transaction Ex.R.2 dated 17.3.1981 being more close to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and discarded other sale transactions. The operative part of the order reads as under :-