SURJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of RFA No. 805 of 1985 filed by the claimant and RFA No. 1077 of 1985 filed by the State of Punjab as they arise out of the common award of the District Judge.

(2.) Land measuring 147 Bighas 3 Biswas was acquired by the State of Punjab for the construction of a Mandi in Morinda vide notification dated 2.1.1979 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). The District Judge on reference under Section 18 of the Act, fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre. This case as regard the grant of compensation for acquisition of the land, is covered by a judgment of this Court rendered in RFA No. 1091 of 1985 decided on 8.12.1988; Gurbax Singh v. The State of Punjab while following the award of this Court in Gurbux Singh's case , this Court affirms the findings recorded by District Judge and grant the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre. The claimant shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as ordered by this Court in Gurbux Singh's case .

(3.) The learned counsel for the claimant Mr. Joshi has vehemently argued that the learned District Judge was not right in his observations that the report of PW-1 Som Nath Saini, a retired Sub-Divisional Officer could not be relied upon simply because he was compulsorily retired on the charges of corruption. He has further argued that admittedly the construction is there and it has been found so even by RW-1 Joginder Paul Building Inspector who has been produced by the State of Punjab. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that a person whose integrity has been doubted, when he was in service, cannot be relied upon. Without going into the question whether PW-1 Som Nath Saini is worthy of reliance, one thing which can safely be relied upon from his evidence is that the superstructures were very much in existence on the spot. He inspected the spot on 1.1.1977, whereas PW-1 Joginder Paul had inspected the spot on 22.3.1977. Both the witnesses had given the valuation in their respective reports according to the rates prevalent in the year 1977. The notification acquiring the land in dispute along with the superstructure was issued on 2.1.1979. There is a time-lag of two years between the cost of estimates prepared by both the witnesses. The valuation of the year 1979 has to be taken into consideration. Even if the valuation suggested by RW-1 Joginder Paul is taken on the face value, he has valued the cost of the superstructure at Rs. 33,696/-. This figure has been arrived at by fixing the cost of the superstructure at the rate of Rs. 26/- per sq. feet and when the aforesaid figure is divided by 26, the area covered comes to 1296 sq. feet. RW-1 Joginder Paul being a witness of the Department might have fixed the valuation at a lesser rate. Similarly, the claimant's witness PW-1 Som Nath Saini also must have fixed the cost of the superstructure at a higher rate. Moreover, both the witnesses were affixing the cost of the superstructure as it was prevalent in the year 1977 and as has been observed above, the reasonable increase in the cost of the superstructure of two years has to be given. In view thereof by applying the guess-work, I hereby fix the costs of the superstructure at the rate of Rs. 45/- per sq. feet. Rupees 45/- per sq. feet when multiplied by 1296 sq. feet, the cost of the super-structure comes to Rs. 58,320/-. The claimant shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the amended provisions, namely under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The learned District Judge will work out the exact amount.