SURJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of a bunch of 20 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition.

(2.) THE facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2700 of 1998.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has totally failed to consider the evidence produced by the land owners on record in the form of sale deeds, which clearly established that value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition was not less than Rs. 3,500/- to Rs. 4,000/- per marla. The entire area in the vicinity was already developed. The acquired land fell within the municipal limits of Jalandhar. Already there was acquisition by Indian Oil Corporation for their depot. The land was abutting 22' metaled road leading to Pathankot bye-pass from the abadi of village Suchi Pind. Number of industrial establishments were located on the bye-pass. The acquired land was merely 200-300 yards away from the bye-pass. Once the learned court below had recorded a finding that the land had great potential for urbanisation, there was no reason for not placing reliance upon the sale deeds produced for small plots of land, as within the municipal limits the sale is always for small plots as big chunk of land is rarely available. Even the State or the Indian Oil Corporation also could not produce any sale deed for big chunk of land in the area. The learned court below has gone wrong in totally discarding the sale deeds produced by the land owners. At the most, a small cut could be applied considering the smallness of the plots and also the fact that these were sale deeds pertaining the houses, where some construction existed. Even the sale deeds produced by the Indian Oil Corporation were also showing value of Rs. 3,500/- per marla. Reliance was placed upon Shri Radhey Shyam v. The State of Haryana, 1980 PLJ 77; The Deputy Director v. Malla Atchinaidu and others, AIR 2007 SC 740; Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others, AIR 2008 SC 399 and Atma Singh (died) through L.Rs. and others v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2008 SC 709. It was further argued that the learned court below has gone wrong in not granting interest on solatium as the same is contrary to the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India, JT 2001(8) SC 130.