UNION OF INDIA Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda dated 7th May, 1998. Vide notification dated 8.7.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Punjab had acquired land measuring about 41 acres 1 kanal and 9 marlas in the revenue estate of Village Bibiwala for the construction of Indo-Tribetan Board Police Complex at village Bibiwala, District Bathinda. The Collector had awarded compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land. Upon reference preferred under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhathinda, enhanced the compensation and granted Rs. 3 lacs per acre with all statutory benefits to the claimants. This judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.

(2.) Union of India preferred the present Regular First Appeal along with an application for impleading it as a party and for permission of the Court to prefer the appeal. It is stated in this application that Union of India had filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, during the pendency of reference before the learned Additional District Judge under S.18 of the Act. This application for impleadment was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. The Union of India challenged the said order in a Civil Revision before the High Court. The revision petition preferred by the Union of India against that order was also dismissed by the High Court in limine. The order of the High Court was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the Union of India, being Civil Appeal No. 2629 of 1999 was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 20th August, 1999. The relevant part of the order reads as under;-

(3.) Thus, the proceedings in the normal course would have been remanded for adjudication afresh in accordance with law upon the impleadment of the Union of India as party to the reference, however, vide order dated 12th October, 1999, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali had made an effort to determine if the master could be decided without remanding the same to the reference Court. His Lordship had directed the Union of India to explain what evidence would they like to adduce in support of their case. Today i.e. 13.12.1999 when the matter was listed, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India contended that the Union of India has to produce number of registered sale deeds, the photo copies of some of which have also been produced before this Court to prove the fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant time. He further contended that in accordance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah, A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2600 and Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 Supreme Court 2625, he has to produce the vendee(s) and vendor(s) to prove the said sale deeds. He further contended that they have to cross-examine the claimants as well as the witnesses produced by them in order to scrutinise the authenticity of the sale instances proved by the claimants as well as in relation to the location and potentially of the land in question.