GURPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, challenging the judgment dated 30.11.1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar on a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,000/- per marla to Rs. 3,000/- per marla. Feeling dis-satisfied therefrom, the claimants as well as the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar have filed the presents appeals.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 19.4.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired total area of land measuring 35 kanals 14 marlas in the revenue estate of village Boot, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, for development of a Municipal Park. However, while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act, an area measuring 7 Kanals 14 Marlas was left and excluded out of the acquitted land, as there were some unauthorised structures constructed thereon. Therefore, an area of 28 kanals was actually acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 18.9.1986 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per marla. The claimants, dis-satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act wherein it was pleaded that the acquired area is situated within Municipal Limits of Jalandhar City and abuts the Jalandhar-Nakodar road. It was further pleaded that the land adjacent to the acquired area is residential and commercial, as such it has the potentiality of residential and commercial establishments. The area is situated near the biggest hide and leather market of India. It was further urged that the claimants' area has been bifurcated on account of the area left as un-acquired. There is no passage or road to approach the remaining area and, therefore, the claimants should be paid compensation to the extent of 20% on account of bifurcation. The Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, however, pleaded that the land was acquired for Municipal Park and award was announced in the presence of the claimants who had given their consent and accepted the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.