BACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these 76 regular first appeals/cross objection commonly is to the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ropar, both dated 9.4.1990. Vide judgment in the case of Bachhattar Singh, the learned Judge had answered 35 land references made to him by the Land Acquisition Collector, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. hereinafter referred to as the Act. While vide the second judgment in RFA No. 1791 of 1990, titled Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab, 5 other references were answered by the common judgment. In this way 40 appeals have been preferred by the Sate, 8 appeals have been preferred by the claimants and 28 cross objections have been preferred by the claimants against these two judgments. As all these appeals and cross objections though arise from two judgments dated 9.4.1990, yet common acquisition notification; evidence and similar question of law and fact, therefore, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals together by a common judgment.

(2.) The undisputed facts can be recapitulated for proper appreciation of the controversies in issue. Government of Punjab intended to acquire land measuring 94.72 acres in the revenue estate of village Dharak Khurd, H.B. No. 55, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar for a public purpose, namely, construction of S.Y.L Canal. For this purpose notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act respectively, were issued and published in the gazette of the State Government on 18.9.1985 and 24.9.1985. Upon inviting objections the learned Land Acquisition Collector, after granting opportunity to the parties, in accordance with law, determined the following rate of compensation payable to the claimants:- <TAB> 1. Chahi Rs. 62,000/-per acre 2. Barani/Bagh Barani Rs. 50,000/- per acre 3. Banjar Jadid, Banjar Rs. 35,000/- per acre Qadim, Gair Mumkin. </TAB>

(3.) The claimants being dissatisfied from the extent of the amount awarded to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands, they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Judge after recording evidence produced by the parties vide two different judgments both dated 9.4.1990 decided all the references in relation to this notification and village, granted the following relief to the claimants:-