STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellate-State of Punjab has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in R. F. A. No. 906 of 1978 and Cross Objections No. 47-C-I of 1987.

(2.) LAND measuring 467 acres was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 13. 10. 1969 issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of various schemes at Anandpur Sahib. Vide his award dated 15. 6. 1990, Land Acquisition collector determined the market value of the total land by dividing it into three blocks i. e. A, B and C. For block-A, market value was fixed at Rs. 100.00 per mafia. For block-B, it was fixed at Rs. 75.00 per marla and for block-C, the market value was fixed at Rs. 35.00 per marla. On a reference made Under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, the learned Addl. District Judge, Rupnagar held that no part of the land belonging to the respondents fell in block-A and that their entire land falls in blocks B and C. On a re-appreciation of the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value of block-B from Rs. 75.00 per marla to Rs. 150.00 per marla. Likewise, for block-C, the reference Court revised the market value from Rs. 35.00 per marla to Rs. 100/per marla. He also directed the payment of solatium at the rate of 15% for the enhanced compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment of compensation. The State of Punjab challenged the legality of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the market value fixed by the Reference Court was excessive and arbitrary. The respondents filed Cross-Objections and challenged the said judgment on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was on lower side.

(3.) ALTHOUGH in the appeal, the State of Punjab has challenged the award of the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per marla for the entire land, in our opinion, there is no merit in the plea of the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have given the enhanced compensation for the entire land. Keeping in view the placement of the land, which is in the vicinity of a municipality, we do not find any reason to upset the view taken by the learned Single Judge.