PARMOD KUMAR Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RFA Nos.54 and 194 of 2000 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') against the Award of the Reference Court, Ferozepur dated 04.09.1999, whereby the Reference Court has declined to grant enhancement regarding the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector dated 24.03.1994.

(2.) The notification issued under Section 4 of the Act vide which the land was acquired is dated 29.08.1991. Section 6 notification was issued on 06.02.1992 which rescinded the earlier notification dated 03.02.1988 and resultantly the land measuring 173 kanals 6 marlas was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of setting up a Government Polytechnic College. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide Award dated 24.03.1994 had awarded Rs. 1 lakh for Chahi land and Rs. 1,20,000/- for Gair Mumkin land.

(3.) The reasoning which prevailed with the Reference Court to dismiss the reference petitions was that firstly it could not be proved by the landowners that the land was situated with the municipal limits of Ferozepur, which was their claim. Secondly the sale deeds which had been produced Ex.A1 to A8 were all minuscule and pertained to the interior part of the Ferozepur city. Some of them were also post notification and evidence as such was missing as to the location of the property sold vide the said sale deeds and whether it was adjacent to the property acquired. Eventually a fall back was made upon the sale deed dated 30.03.1988 (Ex.R1), which had been produced by the respondents, whereby the land measuring 79 kanals 15 marlas was purchased by the Education Department and the land was situated right in front of the acquired land. The veracity of the sale deed and that the State would not avoid stamp duty and registration charges was, accordingly, kept in mind and it was held that once the land had been sold @ Rs. 90,000/-, the compensation which had been given by the Collector was well justified and, therefore, was not liable to be interfered with. Similarly, the compensation of Rs. 7,000/- which was given on account of the Haveli was justified as to what was the price of the Haveli and how much was spent to install the tubewell had not been proved by leading cogent and necessary evidence.