LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. KANWARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala to make grouse of the enhancement of Rs. 2,200/- per acre made by the Land Acquisition Court Faridkot for certain land acquired by the Board for the construction of a 33 K. V. Sub Station at village Sarai Naga Tehsil Muktsar District Faridkot. For payment of compensation to the respondent landowner, the Collector determined the market value of the acquired land @Rs. 11,000/- per acre. Since the land-owner claimant did not accept the adequacy of this compensation, he sought a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. and as a result of that the Lower Court has enhanced this rate to Rs. 13,200/- per acre. This has been doneprimarily for the reason that the suit land had better potential than the land on the basis of which the Collector had determined the rate of compensation. This is what the Court has concluded in this regard : -

(2.) The solitary submission raised by Mr. Ahluwalia learned counsel or the appellant is that the Lower Court having correctly ruled out the sale instances, Exhibits A.4 and A.5 find no justification to enhance the to of compensation in the light of the observation as noticed above. Having heard the learned counsel I find no merit in this submission. Firstly; I see no justification with the Lower Court to rule out sale transactions. Exhibits A.4 and A.5 solely for the reason that these pertain to a period earlier than one year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. April 4, 1977. No rule or principle has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel which lays down that sale transactions pertaining to a period earlier to the date of notification by one year become irrelevant on account of passage of time. Secondly, no sale transaction of Village Sarai Naga is available. In absence of the same, how and why the sale transactions pertaining to land which is about 2 kilometers away from the suit land, would lose their evidentiary value, is not noticed anywhere in the judgment nor is explained by the learned counsel for the appellant. Those transactions disclose a market rate of about Rs. 4 ,000/- per acre. I, therefore, find nothing wrong with the Award of the Lower Court in determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 13,200/- per acre. The appeal of the Board is totally devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs.