RAVI NANDAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the judgments dated 25.11.1988 and 26.4.1989 passed by two learned single Judges in R.F.A, Nos. 1147, 1158, 1159, 1160 and 1377 of 1987 filed by the appellants against the common judgment dated 15.1.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda on the reference applications filed by them. In view of the identical nature of the claim made by the appellants, we are deciding all the appeals by a common judgment.

(2.) VIDE notification No. SFRS-7/3365 dated 9.3.1981 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the land of the appellants and others was acquired by the Government of Punjab for the purpose of construction of an over-bridge at Bhatinda at the railway crossing. In the award passed by him, the Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar assessed the market value of the land in the following manner :- (1) Block A - Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. (2) Block B - Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. (3) Block C - Rs. 15/- per sq. yard. In the reference applications filed by them the appellants pleaded that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed at Rs. 12,000/- per sq. yard. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda rejected the plea of the appellants for enhancement of the compensation but directed that they be given benefit of amended provisions of sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act. In the Regular First Appeals filed by the appellants, the learned Single Judges directed the payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 450/- per sq. yard. Still dissatisfied, the appellants have filed the present appeals and have pleaded for payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 450/- per sq. yard. Still dis- satisfied, the appellants have filed the present appeals and have pleaded for payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per sq. yard.

(3.) IN our opinion, the learned Advocate General is right in contending that the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any error of law requiring interference by the Appellate Bench. A careful reading of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge shows that he has thoroughly discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties. This is crystal clear from the following extract of the judgment dated 15.1.1987 of the learned Reference Court :-