Partly allowed

(O&M) State of Punjab v. Ishwar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Nov 2008RFA/1161/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld a land acquisition compensation award but modified the interest rate for the acquisition gap from 12% to 10% per annum, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mehtab Singh and Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA.

What did the court decide?

The reference court's judgment modified to grant only 10% increase in lieu of the awarded 12% increase for the acquisition gap.

(O&M) State of Punjab Vs Ishwar Singh — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

RFA No.1161 of 1992 - 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

********

¶4

RFA No.1161 of 1992 Date of decision: 14.11.2008

State of Punjab

. . . . Appellant

Versus

Isher Singh and others

¶10

. . . . Respondents

¶11

********

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶13

********

¶14

Present: Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellant.

¶15

None for the respondents.

¶16

********

¶17

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)

¶18

This judgment shall dispose of 17 appeals, 16 appeals filed by the State of Punjab and one appeal filed by the landowners against the award of the Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 26.09.1991. All the appeals are being disposed of together as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

¶19

Land measuring 6.88 acres situated in village Thuha, H.B. No.255, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was notified vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette on 25.3.1988 followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 29.4.1988 for a public purpose, namely, construction of Rajkhand Minor.

¶20

The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Patiala, Punjab vide his award No.369/P-SYL dated 27.4.1989

¶21

RFA No.1161 of 1992 - 2 -

¶22

classified the land into two categories and assessed the compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi and @ Rs.35,040/per acre for Gair Mumkin.

¶23

Aggrieved against the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act which were referred to the Civil Court where they claimed that award of the Collector is inadequate because the market value at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.3 lacs per acre. In the written statement, it was alleged that the compensation has been assessed by the Collector after taking into account all factors and the prevalent market rate. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence and after appreciating the same the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 26.9.1991 re-determined the compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per bigha for Chahi and @ Rs.9,600/- per bigha for Gair Mumkin, besides awarding statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act.

¶24

Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the learned court below has erred in ignoring the sale deeds Exs. R1 and R2.

¶25

To my mind, these sale deeds Exs.R1 and R2 have been rightly ignored because the value arising out of these two sale deeds is less than the value determined by the Collector thus, these sale deeds cannot be considered by the reference Court in view of Section 25 of the Act.

¶26

Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the court below has relied upon the earlier award Ex.A1 which pertains to the notification issued on 16.9.1982 and 28.2.1983 in which the market value of the irrigated land was determined @ Rs.15,000/per bigha and for Gair Mumkin @ Rs.6,000/- per bigha. The court

¶27

RFA No.1161 of 1992 - 3 -

¶28

below while relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of “ Inder Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 1988(2) PLR 190 allowed 12% per year increase and for a gap of 5 years and 25 days from the earlier acquisition of 16.9.1982, 60% increase has been given. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Inder Singh’s case (supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of “ Mehtab Singh vs. State of Punjab” 1995(2) PLR 47.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his assistance.

¶30

There is no dispute that Inder Singh’s judgment (supra) has been overruled in Mehtab Singh’s case (supra) and it has been held that an increase of 12% is not statutory. But in a recent judgment, the Supreme Court, in the case of “Special Land

¶31

Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa

¶32

Sahib” AIR 2002 SC 1558, allowed 10% increase for every year for the gap of two notifications.

¶33

In view of the above, the judgment of the reference Court is modified only to the extent that the appellant shall be now entitled to 10% increase in stead of 12%, as awarded by the reference Court. The present appeals are disposed of with the above modification.

¶34

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 14.11.2008 JUDGE vivek

(O&M) State of Punjab v. Ishwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) State of Punjab v. Ishwar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana Vs Aman Kaur etc.

St of Hry Vs Om Wati & Ors.

Phool Singh Vs St of Hry

Pb.St Vs Jaswant Singh

Pb.St. Vs Gurdwara Sahib

Pb.St. Vs Rattan Singh