THAKUR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above three appeals raise a common question of fact and law and the judgment under one appeal has been pronounced while entirely relying upon the judgment in the other appeal. Thus, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these regular appeals together by a common judgment.

(2.) STATE of Punjab issued a notification dated 23.5.1984 for acquiring 55.75 acres of land in the revenue estate of Abohar Circle-1 for construction of Abohar bye-pass southern alignment. This was followed by notification under Section 6 of the same date. The Land Acquisition Collector upon inviting objections and their consideration in accordance with law vide award dated 23.4.1986 awarded the following compensation depending upon the nature of the land :-

(3.) AS is clear from the above facts, the first judgment pronounced is the award dated 17.5.1988. In this case claimants had produced two witnesses and three sale-deeds Ex. A.1 to A.3 on record. They also relied upon award Ex. A.4. Respondents have produced only one witness RW 1 Dharamvir Kanungo, tendered in evidence Ex. R.2 to R.6 and proved on record site plan Ex. R.1. Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.3 and Ex. R.2 to Ex. R.6 are the sale instances which have not been proved in accordance with law as neither the vendor/vendee nor any other witness was examined to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the sale instances. Thus, in accordance with the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600, and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625, these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration.