STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GULZAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2926 and 2927 of 1993 and Cross-objection No. 35-CI of 1994 in Regular First Appeal No. 2926 of 1993, as they arise out of a common award of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 8.10.1993. Vide notification dated 20.8.1985, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') an area of 15.42 acres of land situated in village Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala, was acquired for the construction of S.Y.L. Canal, Subsequently more land i.e. measuring 0.97 acre was acquired in the same village and for the same purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 5.8.1987, awarded the compensation at the following rates :-

(2.) This Court is concerned with the valuation of the acquired land upto the depth of 150 feet as has been mentioned above and not for two kinds of land. The learned counsel for the landowners/objectors has argued that this Court while dealing with the notification dated 13.12.1982 evaluated the land abutting on either side of the road connecting Rajpura with Chandigarh via Banur and Zirakpur upto the depth of 150 feet, at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre in RFA No. 2807 of 1987 decided on 31.8.1989. The learned counsel has further argued that since the land in question was acquired by present notification after a period of 34 months, the Landowners in the present acquisition are entitled to necessary increase of 12% p.a for the price rise between the dates of two notifications in view of the law laid down in several judicial pronouncements including Inder Singh v. State of Punjab,1988 93 PunLR 190

(3.) The argument has got force. Following the law laid down in Inder Singh's case , I hereby grant compensation for the acquired land of the cross-objectors at the rate of Rs. 2,01,000/- (two lacs one thousand) per acre. The cross-objectors are also held entitled to the grant of statutory benefits of the amend provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. They are also allowed two months time to make up the deficiency in the Court fee. In consequence of the observations made above the appeals filed by the State of Punjab are dismissed with no order as to costs, whereas the Cross-objections filed by the Cross-objectors in Regular First Appeal No. 2926 of 1993 are allowed with proportionate costs.