STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Ors. shall dispose of Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 865 to 873 of 1997 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. Even the learned Addl. District Judge disposed of all the references by a common order. Mr. Masih, learned AAG, Punjab, also suggests the same course:

(2.) THERE is delay of 142 days in filing these appeals. There is also delay of 40 days in refiling these appeals. The Court, before condoning the delay, must necessarily, issue notice to the other side but in view of the fact that after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am going to dismiss the main appeals, there is no need to issue notice in the misc. applications for condonation of delay. Taking a lenient view in the matter, delay both on filing and refiling the appeals is condoned.

(3.) THE parties led evidence with a view to show as to whether the land failing across the canal was accessible or not Shri Sham Lal Patwari of the area and working in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector appeared as PW. 3 and proved site plan, Ex. A. 2. He admitted that tube wells of the landowners had been left out on one side of the canal while their severed land falls on the other side and there is no bridge or culvert on the canal to have any access to the land of the claimants falling on the other side of the canal. The appellant-State also examined Kewal Krishan, Kanungo as RW. 1. This witness also stated, in tune with the statements of the claimants that the land of claimants had been severed in two pieces on account of acquisition of land for canal minor. He, however, stated that some of the landowners had made temporary passage and that they had no difficulty in having access to their land on the other side of the canal which, according to him was dry at that time. He also stated that there was a proposal to construct a bridge on the canal. He further stated that with the help of wooden planks the landowners could cross the canal and work out the land falling across the canal. The statement of this witness was severely criticized by the learned Addl. District Judge. It was observed that this witness had temerity to state that some of the landowners had made temporary passage. What passage could be carried through a canal, perhaps, only Kewal Krishan Kanungo could know. On the face of it, therefore, statement of Kewal Krishan was not only highly exaggerated but false. Assuming, at one particular time, some part of the canal was dry, it could not be said that this canal would remain, for all times to come, dry. In fact, canal has been made with a view that water runs through the same and not that the same remains dry. Assuming, some of the landowners had made some wooden planks or even for that matter, they go by a boat across the canal, the question is as to whether they will be able to properly utilise this land. The answer to this question, in view of this Court, has to be in negative. It is proved on records of the case that the claimants are residing in the village and it is from there that they operate for their agricultural avocation. To carry all agricultural implements and, in particular, vehicles like tractor and others would be impossible. It is conceded position that as on the date when land was acquired or even till date, no bridge has been made on the canal. In view of this Court, land of the claimants located across the canal has been almost rendered useless.