GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of a notification dated 4.11.1976 published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 12.11.1976 land measuring 434 Kanals 15 Marlas was acquired for public purposes, namely, Union of India. The land is situated in village Dhablan, Tehsil and District Patiala. However, ultimately, 380 Kanals 12 Marlas of land stood acquired in view of exclusion of measuring 54 Kanals 3 Marlas. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates :

(2.) The appellants' land measuring 49 Kanals (as has been stated by Mr. P.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellants at the Bar is a part of the acquired land. He has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has committed apparent error in not holding the land measuring 40 Kanals 12 Marla to be Chahi. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel. A perusal of Exhibit A. 9-a Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 clearly shows that the land of Gurcharan Singh etc. was of Nehri character. There is presumption of continuity. Simply because no subsequent Jamabandis have been produced on the record of the case, it cannot change the character of the land. No rebuttal evidence has been produced by the Union of India. Applying the law of presumption of continuity, I hold that land measuring 40 Kanals 12 Marlas was Nehri.

(3.) Mr. P.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants has than argued that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in placing reliance upon mutations which are inadmissible in evidence. It has been held by this Court in a Full Bench judgment reported as State of Punjab v. Pohu and another, 1985 87 PunLR 109 that mutations are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked at. In view thereof, I hold that the learned Additional District Judge could not have determined the market value of the acquired land on basis of the mutations. This being the legal position, this Court is left with the evidence produced by the appellants. Exhibit A.1 being the mortgage deed has rightly been held to be no assistance by the learned Additional District Judge. Similarly, Exhibit A. 2 a sale deed dated 23.11.1978 has rightly been discarded, by the learned Additional District being post-dated notification. However, the learned Additional District Judge was not right in discarting Exhibit A. 4. The only ground for discarding this sale transaction is that it pertained to small piece of land. This, of course, is true, yet is cannot be ignored from consideration altogether. The Court could have applied some cuts. By applying a cut of 1/4th, I shall determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16364/- per acre as regards the Nehri land. Normally, this Court would have applied 1/3rd cut but 1/4th cut is being applied because of the time lay between Exhibit A-4 and the date of the notification in the instant case. Once 1/4th cut is applied and there is time leg of six years between the sale transaction Exhibit A-4 and the date of the notification the sale transaction of small size of land can legally from the primary basis for determining market value of the acquired land. I, would, therefore, determine the market value of the Nehri land at Rs. 16364/- per acre, this being 3/4th of the price per acre fetched by way of Exhibit A. 4. Since I have evaluated the nehri land at the aforesaid rate, the Barani land is evaluated at Rs. 11,000/- and the Banjar land is also evaluated at Rs. 5500/- per acre.