SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point which has been raised in this appeal and in support of which arguments have been advanced by Shri Rajneesh Narula, counsel for the appellant is whether the learned District Judge, Ropar and the learned Single Judge have erred in fixing the market value of the structures existing on the land of the appellant which was acquired by the Government of Punjab.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the above-mentioned point are that the land measuring 147 Bighas and 3 Biswas of the area of village Morinda was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 2. 1. 1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a public purpose, namely, construction of new Mandi at Morinda. After considering the claim of the landowners, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation by dividing the acquired land in 3 blocks. Compensation at the rate of Rs. 69,120.00 per acre was awarded for the land covered by block 'a'. For the land covered by block 'b', compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,560/per acre was awarded and for the land covered by block 'c' the rate of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was Rs. 48,000.00 per acre. In the reference made at the instance of the appellant, the learned District Judge, Ropar directed the payment of compensation at flat rate of Rs. 75,000.00 per acre. He also directed the payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 35,000.00 in respect of the structures existing on the disputed land. The Reference Court also directed payment of solatium and interest. The appellant did not feel satisfied with the award of compensation in respect of the structure. Therefore, she filed RFA No. 805 of 1985. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal with costs of Rs. 1,000.00 and fixed the market value of the super-structures at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per square feet and enhanced the total compensation payable in respect of super-structures from Rs. 35,000.00 to Rs. 58,320/ -. The learned Single Judge also directed the grant of benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in the year 1984.

(3.) AFTER considering the argument of Shri Narula and perusing the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and the judgments of the Reference Court as well as the learned Single Judge, we are convinced that there is no justification to make further enhancement in the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 19. 2. 1985 shows that after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the learned District Judge fixed the value of the superstructures at the rate of Rs. 26.00 per square feet. The relevant portion of that judgment is extracted below : "the claimant examined Shri Som Nath Saini (PW1), a retired SDO, who inspected the structures in dispute on 1. 1. 1977 and prepared the abstract of cost Ex. PI and the plan of the disputed structures Ex. P2. He prepared the estimate by applying through rates mentioned in the Common Schedule of Rates and also allowed sanctioned premium. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that till 24. 5. 1984, when he appeared as witness in this court, he had already appeared as a witness for the claimants in 150 such claim cases. It was also admitted by him that he was compulsorily retired from service and was suspended on charge of corruption and was ultimately censured. He did not prepare any rough note and prepared the estimate on 9. 4. 1982 although he had inspected the spot on 1. 1. 1977. Evidently, the evidence of this witness needs thorough scrutiny and cannot be accepted at its face value. He is a witness who can be safely taken to have prepared the estimate with a bias in favour of the claimant. Although he had prepared the estimate on the basis of Common Schedule of Rates, he allowed a deduction of 5% on account of the work being below PWD specifications. The total estimate, prepared by him, amounted to Rs. 1,01,199. 28/ -.