HARDYAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In pursuance of the notification published on 28th February, 1980, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), the State of the Punjab sought to acquire land measuring 60 kanals 12 Marlas belonging to Harbhai Singh the predecessor-in-interest of the present claimants, for the expansion of Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital at Faridkot. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre, besides awarding Rs. 5000/- for two rooms, Rs. 700/- for seven trees and Rs. 500/- for the tube-well bore. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of their acquired land, the claimants sought reference under section 18 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge, Faridkot. The learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide his impugned award, enhanced the compensation of the acquired land to Rs. 36,000/- per acre, besides allowing 15% solatium over and above the said compensation and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking possession till its payment. Still being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up in appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.P. Bhandari, learned Advocate General, Punjab, besides perusing the record. There is no dispute between the parties that the acquired land has a situation potential of being used for residential and commercial purposes being located at a distance of 3 Killas from the buildings of the Panchayat Bhawan, Red Cross Bhawan and P.W.D. Rest House at Faridkot. Sadhu Singh, Revenue Patwari (R.W.1) had frankly admitted these facts. He further stated that there are residential houses and shops along the Faridkot Sadaq road and Faridkot-Araiyan Wala road and that the land falling towards the western side of the acquired land had already been acquired for the Medical College and that the main habitation of Faridkot town falls at distance of 7 Killas from the acquired land. He also admitted that the acquired land falls at a distance of one Killa i.e. 40 Karams from the Faridkot-Sadaq road. The perusal of the plan, Ex. A.1. prepared by Kanwar Lal, Revenue Patwari (A.W. 1) on the basis of Aks Shajra as well as copy of the Shajra Aks Ex. R. 1 also supports the above referred conclusion regarding the location of the acquired land. According to Kanwar Lal, Revenue Patwari, the acquired land falls nearer to Faridkot town than the land already acquired for the Medical College as well as for the Faridkot Cantonment. No doubt, the perusal of the certified copy, Ex. A. 3 of the award of the learned Additional District Judge as well as certified Ex. A. 4 of the order of the High Court pertaining to the land acquired for Faridkot Cantonment reveals that the said land was located along the main Faridkot Sadaq road as well as the Cantonment road, but all the same the acquired land in the present case being located nearer to the above referred office buildings as well as adjoining the buildings of the Medical College, there is no option but to conclude that it was a better situation potential than the land subject-matter of the order of the High Court Ex. A. 4. The perusal of Ex A.4 shows that the said land was acquired vide notification published on 28th August, 1974, whereas the present land was acquired vide notification published on 28th February, 1980, i.e. after a gap of 5-1/2 years. The High Court in R.F.A. No. 1637 of 1979 awarded compensation of the acquired land upto a depth of 40 Karams from the said main roads at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per Acre and the remaining land at Rs. 30,000/- per Acre. A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is tremendous increase in the prices of immovable property from year to year in the urban areas. Thus, the price of the acquired land in the year 1980 must have been more than doubled than the one in the year 1974. Therefore, it can be well inferred that the market price of the land abutting the main Faridkot-Sadaq road would be at Rs. 1,20,000/- per Acre on 28th February, 1980. The present acquired land being situated at a distance of 40 Karams away from the said road, at least one-third of the above referred price has to be slashed for providing roads etc. Thus, on the basis of the judgment of this Court, Ex. A. 4, the market value of the acquired land could not be less than Rs. 80,000/- per Acre on 28th February, 1980. This conclusion is further fortified from the factum that as per sale-deed, Ex A. 5, land measuring 4 Kanals 0 Marla forming part of Khasra No. 5706 was sold for Rs. 30,000/- on 19th December, 1972. That land is located along the Faridkot-Ferozepur metalled road. The per acre price of this land would work upto Rs. 60,000/- per acre in the year 1972. So by the year 1980, it must have been doubled. If we slash one-third from the said market price, in view of the factum that the land in the present case is located at a distance of one Killa from the Faridkot-Sadaq road, than the market price of th acquired land would work upto Rs. 80,000/- per acre. The remaining sale transactions Exs. A. 6 to A. 20 were rightly discarded by the learned Additional District Judge as these pertain to small pieces of land only. The learned Additional District Judge, has relied upon the sales exhibited by mutations Ex. R. 7, R. 8 and R. 10 in calculating the average market price at Rs. 36,000/- per acre, but in view of the findings of full Bench of this Court in The State of Punjab v. Pohu,1986 89 PunLR 109, the certified copies of the mutations being inadmissible in evidence, cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, the land subject-matter of these mutations being located near the sewerage dump, probably would not fetch better price than the acquired land, although the said land is located along the Faridkot- Araiyanwala road. Thus the market price of the acquired land on 28th February, 1980 is assessed at Rs. 80,000/- per Acre.

(3.) Due to lack of evidence, it cannot be said that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded inadequate compensation for construction and the bore of the tube-well. The claimants are also not entitled to any compensation due to loss of business or for shifting as, admittedly, according to Kanwar Lal, Revenue Patwari (A.W. 1) the land was lying vacant at the time of acquisition.