STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 2475 to 2484, 2486 to 2512 of 1987 filed by the State of Punjab and Regular First Appeals Nos. 1772, 2443, 2146, 2165 to 2192 of 1987 and Nos. 31 and 78 of 1988. THE FACTS On December 13, 1982, notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State Government expressing its intention to acquire land measuring 110-99 acres situated in the revenue estate of V. Polwal, Tehsil Rajpura for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The notification was followed by the publication of a declaration under S.6 of the Act on 10-1-1983. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on March 14, 1984. The claimants were dissatisfied with the award and got reference made to the Land Acquisition Court u/s. 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Court placed the acquired land in three categories and evaluated it as under:- 1. Chahi @ Rs. 62,000/- per acre. 2. Barani @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre. 3. Gair Mumkin @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre.

(2.) The Land Acquisition Collector did not give any award for severance and left the matter open for adjudication in separate proceedings and so did the Land Acquisition Court. In appeal the dispute is confined only to the quantum of compensation payable to the land owner claimants. The Advocate General agitated that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Court is not justified on evidence produced in the case. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand joined issue with the learned Advocate General and urged that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Court does not reflect the market value of the land acquired.

(3.) Both the parties did not dispute the correctness of the finding recorded by the Land Acquisition Court that the acquired land is situated in revenue estate Powal and falls within the periphery of Chandigarh. While planning the future development of city Chandigarh, the planners thought that in future the city will need surrounding areas for its extension and with a view to check growth of slums and ramshackle constructions around the city of Chandigarh, the Periphery Control Act was enacted prohibiting the construction of buildings contrary to the provisions of the Act. The nearness of the revenue estate Powal to the capital town is an important factor which has to be kept into consideration while determining the future potentiality of the land acquired. In determining the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Court relied upon the award given by it relating to the land situated in village Manakpur which is adjoining the revenue estate of Powal. The learned counsel for the claimants was at pains to highlight the agreement dated June 27, 1986 arrived at between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and the members of the Action Committee. When the land was sought to be acquired for Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal, the claimants land owners objected to it and obstructed the construction of the canal. The Chief Minister arrived at a settlement with the members of the Action Committee. This settlement although was between the members of the Action Committee who principally belonged to District Ropar and the Chief Minister, Punjab, yet it does furnished a good instance for determining the market value of the acquired land. Under the settlement, the Chahi land had to be evaluated at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. In addition thereto other benefits were also given to the claimants, namely, a member of the claimant's family was to be given a government job or job in any public sector undertaking. Plots were to be offered at the reserve price at Mohali or at other urban estates. The settlement may not attain the character of binding contract since it was not entered into as provided under Art.299 of the Constitution of India and may not be construed as a contract in terms thereof but nevertheless it is a piece of evidence which could be taken into consideration for determining the market value.