JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of RFA No. 3636 of 1993 filed by the claimant-land owners and RFAs No. 2318 of 1993, 2319 of 1993, 2320 of 1993, 2321 of 1993, 2322 of 1993, 2323 of 1993, 2324 of 1993, 2325 of 1993, 2326 of 1993, 2327 of 1993, 2328 of 1993, 2329 of 1993, 2330 of 1993, 2331 of 1993, 2332 of 1993, 2333 of 1993 and 2334 of 1993 (17 RFAs) filed by the State of Punjab against a common judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 31.8.1992, as common question of law and fact arises in these appeals. Hence, the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the Punjab Government vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 9/10.3.1987 intended to acquired 6.67 acres of land in Village Bhagrana, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the purpose of construction of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal and for the construction of Bohakherid distributary from R.D.O. (sic)to 5342 metres, vide notification No. 1493/SYL/ Const./87, Declaration under 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also issued on the same date i.e. 9/10.3.1987. Both the notifications were published in the locality through the process server and the publication in the newspaper was done on 13.3.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 9.9.1987 awarded compensation at the following rates:-

(3.) SHRI R.S. Mamli, learned counsel for the claimant-land owners has argued that in RFA No. 349 of the 1990, this Court has enhanced the compensation in similar acquisition proceedings; in RFA No. 349 of 1990, compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- has been awarded for Chahi land, Rs. 1,00,806.45. for Rausli/Dakat land and Rs. 60,483.87 has been awarded for Gair Mumkin land. Shri Mamli has further contended that in the aforementioned appeal, the land was acquired in village Pawala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the purpose of construction of Satluj Yamuna Link Canal. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that case was issued on 7.10.1985. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimants that as the land in the instant case also falls in Tehsil Rajpura, and this acquisition is for the same purpose, therefore, the compensation should be determined on the basis of the decision in RFA No. 349 of 1990. It has further been contended by the learned counsel that in the instant case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 9/10.3.1987 i.e. approximately 1-1/2 years after the issuance of notification in RFA No. 349 of 1990, therefore, enhancement of 15% should be given to the claimants in the present case.