DURGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I propose to dispose of four connected regular first appeals bearing Nos. 1121, 1163, 1164 and 1182 of 1988 that have since been filed by the claimants in the land acquisition matter seeking further enhancement of compensation. All the appeals preferred by the claimants pertain to the same notification that was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and even though decided on different dates, same compensation has been ordered to be paid to the claimants-appellant. Learned Counsel representing the parties also suggest that all these matters need to be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention for determining the only question pertaining to fixation of market value at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act reveal that the Government of Punjab in its Industries Department issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 24.2.1981 for acquiring 47 kanals 12 marlas of land in village Tafazalpur Tehsil and District Patiala, for public purpose, namely, for setting up of Diesel Locomotive Components Workshop and its residential colony at Patiala. Follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 10.9.1981. Land Acquisition Collector on 14.10.1981 assessed the market value of the land, subject-matter of dispute, at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre, which was situated on the western side of the Patiala Nadi, whereas the land situated on the Eastern side of the Patiala Nadi was assessed at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the assessment of the market value, in the manner aforesaid, the claimants-appellant filed their reference under Section 18 of the Act and learned District Judge vide its award dated 29.4.1988 in Regular First Appeal No. 1121 of 1988 assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre, irrespective of the fact as to whether the land was situated on the western or eastern side of the Patiala Nadi. The claimant-appellants, as mentioned above, seek further enhancement.

(3.) It is not denied during the course of arguments that while working out market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre, learned District Judge placed reliance upon award Ex. P.1, dated 3.8.1987, assessing the market value of the land at the rate of 1,67,000/- per acre which pertained to the very notification vide which the land of the claimants-appellant was acquired. Learned District Judge, also relied upon award Ex. P.2, dated 30.4.1987, assessing the same very market value, i.e. Rs. 1,67,000/- per acre for the very notification, which is subject matter of dispute in the present case. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, vehemently, contends that the claimants had brought on record sale instances Exs. P7, P8, P9, P10 and P11 dated 22.9.1980, 6.11.1980, 10.11.1980, 6.2.1981 and 27.7.1980, respectively. Whereas vide sale deed Ex. P7, land measuring 20 sq. yds. was sold for an amount of Rs. 6000/-, which shall work out to Rs. 1,45,200/- per acre, land measuring 40 sq. yds, was sold vide sale instance Ex. P6 for an amount of Rs. 9,000/-, which works out to Rs. 1,08,900/- per acre, vide sale instance Ex.P. 200 sq. yds. was sold for an amount of Rs. 22,000/-, which shall work out to Rs. 530631/- per acre, an area measuring 200 sq. yds. was sold vide Ex. P10, for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- which in terms of acre, shall work out to Rs. 484000/- per acre and vide sale instance Ex. P11, 2 marlas, i.e. equivalent to 50 square yards, of land was sold for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- which, in terms of acre shall work out to Rs. 6,05,000/- per acre. These sale instances, learned Counsel for the appellants contends, could not possibly be ignored as the same have been held to be relevant and comparable by learned District Judge. If we work on the basis of the sale instances aforesaid, the compensation ought to have been for more than the one which has since been assessed by learned District Judge, further contends learned Counsel.