GURBUX SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 21 regular first appeals (RFA Nos. 1087 to 1093 and 1225 to 1237 and 1076 of 1985), the first seven by the landowner/claimants and the latter fourteen by the State of Punjab, are directed against two different but similar Awards of the District Court, Ropar dated 22nd February, 1985, 2nd March, 1985 and are thus being disposed of through this common judgment. As per the impugned awards, the said court has categorised the entire acquired land into two blocks-'A' and 'B' and evaluated these at Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 60,0000/- per acre respectively. Both the sides having not felt satisfied with these awards have preferred these appeals. The solitary question that needs to be determined is as to what was the market value of the acquired land on 2nd January, 1979, when the requisite notification under/Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act) was published. The material facts which are not in dispute, and are otherwise well established on record, are as follows.

(2.) Initially a notification under/Section 4 of the Act was published on 17th January, 1977, for the acquisition of this very land. It was required for setting up a Mandi (grain market) at Morinda (District Ropar). In pursuance of the said notification, the acquiring authorities took possession of the land on 24th January, 1977. Later, vide his award dated 31st March, 1978, the Collector determined the market value of the land at Rs. 22,000/- per acre. Still later, all these acquisition proceedings were quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd September, 1978 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2151 of 1977 (Inder Singh v. State of Punjab etc.). On 29th September, 1978, a notice was concidedly served on all the persons concerned by the acquiring authorities to refund the amount of compensation already paid to them and to take possession of their lands. However, instead of refunding the amount the interested persons asked the authorities to first determine the amount of damage suffered by them on account of their dispossession and only then they would refund the balance amount, if any. Instead of adopting any such procedure, the acquiring authorities re-notified this land under/Section 4 of the Act on 2nd January, 1979, for acquisition. Though initially the Collector divided this land into three blocks-A, B and C for its evaluation and determined its market value at rates varying from Rs. 48,000/- to Rs. 69,120/- per acre, yet as a result of the respective references sought by the landowner/claimants, the District Judge has pronounced, the presently impugned awards as indicated above. This evaluation is primarily based on an earlier award of the Court i.e. Exhibit P.7 (in RFA No. 1076/1985. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length in the light of the material on record I see no scope for interference with the impugned awards. It deserves to be highlighted at this stage that but for the adore noted award, Exhibit P.7 and copies of the sale deeds, Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 and P. 26, none of the parties has led any other legal evidence in support of their respective claims. They only chose to rely upon certain mutation orders which as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu, 1986 RRR 228, do not constitute any evidence of terms and conditions of a sale transaction and therefore, are not admissible for purposes of evaluating the acquired land. Similarly, the above noted sale instances, Exhibits P. 15 to P. 17 and P. 26 can also not be relied upon for evaluating the suit land. These cannot possibly be taken as comparable sales. Concededly, these pertain to very small plots of few marlas each and the areas covered by these are along the Chandigarh-Ludhiana road. Undisputably, these plots have been utilised for constructing commercial properties. It is thus patent that the lower court could do no better than to rely upon its earlier award, Exhibit P.7, a reference to which has already been made. Though, in the light of this conclusion of mine, nothing more need be said for the disposal of these appeals, yet in order to be fair to Mr. Dhingra, learned counsel for the claiman-appellants, it may be mentioned here that since his clients, in their respective reference applications under Section 18 of the Act had made reference to certain auction of plots meant for the construction of booths on 4th June, 1978, at an exorbitant rate of more than Rs. 23,00,000/- per acre, they according to him are entitled to a much higher rate of compensations than what has been allowed to them. In a nutshell, the contention is that since subsequent to the earlier notification dated 17.1.1977, the authorities concerned had auctioned some plots of this grain market at fabulous price these appellants deserve to be compensated in the light of that. This stand of the learned counsel is wholly untenable. Firstly, no evidence whatsoever has been led in support of the above noted factual position; secondly there is again no evidence to show that as a matter of fact authorities had developed the area in question and the plots as alleged had been carved out. Further, I see no material on record to disturb the following cogent finding recorded by the lower court with regard to potentiality of the acquired land :-

(3.) Further, the stand of the learned counsel that the area in question had been developed into a market appears to be untenable in the light of the following conclusive finding recorded by this Court while allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 2151 of 1977 :-