PARAMJIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of four claimant's appeal (R.F.A. Nos. 719 and 732 of 1975 and 1 and 104 of 1976) and seven State Appeals (R.F.A. Nos. 21, 105, 174-177 and 181 of 1976) as they arise out of the same acquisition proceedings and a common award given by the Land Acquisition Collector but from different awards given by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) By notification published on 9th of March, 1972, the State of Punjab, acquired 23 acres 6 kanals 19 marlas of land for the construction of Grain Market for Tanda Urmar, district Hoshiarpur, in village Rasulpur and Dalla, which are just contiguous to the town of Tanda Urmar. The Land Acquisition collector, by award dated 15th of March, 1973, awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 93.75 per marla. Feeling dis-satisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants sought references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which were separately considered by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, under different awards allowing varied rates of compensation as follows : No. of the CaseAcquired area of the ClaimantRate of Compensation allowed per marla RFA. 719/1975 with cross RFA. 105/1976 by the State.13K-6M adjoining road.350/- RFA. 732/1975 with cross RFA. 21/197643K-3M300/- RFA. 1/1976 with cross RFA. 181/197675K-19M175/- for some portion which was right on the road, 100/- for the rest./TD RFA. 104/1976 with cross RFA. 177/197614M390/- RFA. 176/1976 filed by the State.33K-13M350/- for 38 marlas at the road; 300/- for 67 marlas & 125/- for remaining 572 marlas lying behind front portion. RFA. 174/1976 filed by the State.18K-1M200/- RFA. 715/1976 filed by the State.5K-14M150/-

(3.) The learned counsel for the claimants have urged that the Court below has seriously erred in this case in awarding a variety of rates of compensation as detailed above which was not justified from the facts and circumstances of this case. It is urged that whole of the acquired land had the potential purposes as the entire area around it had developed. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to A-5, the aks shajra, prepared by the Patwari, and R-2, the plan produced by the parties on the record of the case out of which R.F.A. No. 1 of 1976 arises. A look at Plan R-2 shows that the land under green and violet colour has been subject-matter of sale prior to the notification. The whole of the acquired land abuts on two roads and is situate on the crossing of the same, one being Jullundur-Pathankot By-pass and the other being Link road leading to the Railway Station. The acquired land is just 2 killas away from another important road, that is, Hoshiarpur-Tanda Urmur Road. The abadi of village Rasulpur is close to the acquired land, a little away from the Link Road on the other side. Kirpal Singh Patwari as A.W. 5 has testified that the abadi is expanding on the by-pass and that Arya High School building in khasra No. 73 on Hoshiarpur-Tanda Road, that is, not far away from the acquired land. He has further stated that there is a Power House in khasra No. 102/123. This again is on Hoshiarpur-Tanda Road opposite the School. According to him, there is a Petrol Pump, Rice sheller, Kumar Industries and residential houses in khasra Nos. 76-77. All these buildings are situate between the acquired land and the school building abutting on the main Julundur-Pathankot road. He has further stated that opposite to khasra No. 4/13, and after going to a distance of about 12 karams, there is a road leading to Railway Station, Tanda, and that there is abadi on both sides of the said road and the Railway Station is at a distance of two furlongs from the acquired land. The road about which the witness is talking is the same Link road on one side of which lead to the Railway Station and on the road opposite Link Road there is abadi on both sides, which means the abadi is very close to the acquired land. The cross-examination of this witness shows that no question was put to him disputing his statement about the location of the buildings and the abadi etc. and therefore, it stands established that the acquired land is in the vicinity of commercial and residential area and has potential for being used for similar purposes. A look at Plans A-5 and R-2 further shows that acquired land is one compact block and I find no justification for granting varied rates of compensation from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 390/- per marlas, as has done by the Court below. Neither of the parties accepted the approach made by the Court below and the stand of both the sides was that the entire land deserves to be evalued at one flat rate.