ARJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEREAS , aggrieved by inadequate compensation assessed by learned District Judge vide order dated 13.12.1986, the claimant-appellants have filed Regular First Appeal bearing No. 948 of 1987, aggrieved by the same very judgment, Cross Objections bearing No. 65-CI of 1987 have been filed by the State of Punjab seeking restoration of the compensation awarded by learned Land Acquisition Collector. Both, the appeal and the cross objections, thus, need to be decided together.

(2.) THE minimum, but necessary, facts that have given rise to the present appeal and the cross objections reveal that the Government of Punjab, in its Irrigation and Power Department issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 29.9.1983 for a public purpose, i.e., for construction of Oxidation Pond for disposal of effluent for Central Colony, Anandpur Sahib. In due course of time, follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came into being and then award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 18.12.1984 assessing the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition, at the rate of Rs. 14,966/- per acre. On reference filed by the claimants under Section 18 of the Act, learned District Judge, Ropar, fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 19,000/- per acre, vide order dated 13.12.1986.

(3.) MR . Saini, learned counsel representing the appellants, takes strong exception for reliance by learned District Judge upon sale instances, Exs. R-9 and R-10 and states that the sale deeds, which were not even taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector or represented the price far below than the one worked out by the Land Acquisition Collector, could not be legally taken into consideration by learned District Judge. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in The Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur through its Chairman v. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Hoshiarpur through its President and others, (1985-2) PLR 663. This judgment, it is urged, has since been followed in number of judgments rendered by this Court. In The Improvement Trust's case (supra), this Court held that "By now, it is well established that a Collector while making an award under Section 11 of serving a notice on the owner of the land under Section 12 of the Act, acts as an agent of the Government or the authority for which he is acquiring the land that is the Trust in the instant case and the legal character of the award made by him is that of a tender or offer by him on behalf of the Government or the acquiring authority ... In this view of the matter, the Tribunal committed no mistake in treating the Land Acquisition Collector as an agent of the Trust and the determination of the market value of the suit land by him as an offer of price on behalf of the Trust. In the light of this settled position, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in ignoring those sale instances produced and proved by the Trust whcih disclosed a lower rate of market value than what had been awarded by the Collector." This Court is in respectful agreement with the observations made by learned Single Judge, as extracted above, and would further like to add that sale instances reciting a particular amount in the deed as such may not always be true. It is often observed that with a view to save stamp duty, which is quite exorbitant, the parties to a transaction intentionally show a low price. In any case, once the Collector himself ignored sale instances, Exs. R-9 and R- 10, there was no question that the same could have been taken into consideration by the Court for determining the market value of the land, subject matter of acquisition.