Dismissed

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2008RFA/1447/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court order disposed of 21 appeals regarding land acquisition compensation for a bypass road. The Court rejected the State's claim that lower sale deed prices should dictate compensation and the landowners' claim for further enhancement. It upheld the Additional District Judge's enhanced award, dismissing all appeals.

What did the court decide?

All appeals filed by appellants/landowners and the State of Punjab were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mohan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

RFA No.1447 of 1990

¶2

¶3

In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.

¶4

RFA No. 1447 of 1990 Decided on November 04,2008.

¶5

Mohan Singh (dead) through his LRs and others ---Appellants.

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Punjab and another

¶8

--- Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi, and Mr.Dheeraj Jain,Advocates,for the appellants in the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants and for the respondents in the appeals filed by the State of Punjab.

¶10

Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the appellants in the appeals filed by the State of Punjab and for the respondents in the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants.

¶11

Rakesh Kumar Jain,J :

¶12

This judgment shall dispose of 21 appeals both filed by the claimants/landowners as well as the State of Punjab i.e. RFA Nos.1447,1615,1616,1617,1618,1619,2004,1966,2128,2129,2130,2131,213 5,2132,2133,2134,2136,2137,2000,2001 all of 1990 and 593 of 1991, against the award of learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 13.3.1990 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.

¶13

Vide notification dated 19.3.1981 published on 15.5.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the

¶14

RFA No.1447 of 1990 2

¶15

Act'), land situated in village Aujla was acquired for public purpose, namely, for the construction of Gurdaspur Byepass.

¶16

The Land Acquisition Collector, P.W.D. B & R, Jalandhar, awarded compensation @ Rs.30,880/- per acre for canal irrigated land and Rs.30,000/- per acre for chahi land vide his award dated 10.10.1985. Assailing the award, the landowners alleged that the Collector had not taken into consideration sale instances of the land sold near the locality which was prevailing at the time of acquisition @ Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per marla . It was also not considered that the canal irrigated land yielded two crops and that the land was adjacent to abadi of Gurdaspur and as such, was of more value. It was further alleged that after acquisition of their lands, holdings has been reduced into pieces which could not yield good crop.

¶17

In the written statement, it was alleged by the State of Punjab that the compensation awarded and paid to the landowners was just and reasonable because the acquired land was agricultural and was unfit for commercial and residential purpose. It was further alleged that the acquired land was for away from abadi of Gurdaspur Town and with the construction of bye-pass, the prices of other lands of the landowners have increased manifold.

¶18

The landowners/claimants examined Yashpal Patwari Halqa Nabipur as PW1 and Chuni lal one of the claimants/landowners appeared as PW-2, whereas the respondents-State examined Avinash Chander Qanungo of the office of the Land Acquisition Collector as RW 1 and Des Raj Gupta Naib Tehsildar, Land Acquisition as RW 2. They also tendered certified copies of the sale deeds on record. PW 2 Chuni Lal deposed that their land abutted Kahnuwan-Gurdaspur road at the crossing of village Aujla. Their

¶19

¶20

RFA No.1447 of 1990

¶21

residential houses adjoined the proposed Bye-pass. The muinicipal octroi post was at a distance of about half kilometer away from the acquired land. The godowns of the Food Corporation of India were about half kilometer away from the acquired land and that there were industries and residential houses near the land in dispute. Yash Pal Patwari Halqa- Nabipur as PW1 prepared the site plan Ex.P-1 and deposed in favour of the landowners/claimants. He stated that there were godowns of the Food Corporation of India at a distance of half kilometer away from Gurdaspur and abadi of Aujla abutted the acquired land. The landowners also produced certified copy of sale deed dated 7.7.1980 Ex.P-4 vide which one kanal of the land was sold by its owners for Rs. 10,000/- which was agricultural land. It was also pointed out that the land sold vide Ex.P-1 was quite near the acquired land. Avinash Chander Qanungo RW1 stated that the acquired land was purely agricultural and at the time of acquisition was outside the municipal limits of Gurdaspur. On the basis of Aksh-Shajra Ex.R-1 prepared by him, he stated that the distance between boundary of Gurdaspur and the acquired land was about 2 kilometers. Des Raj RW 2 produced another copy of aksh-shajra Ex.R-2 and deposed that the acquired land was agricultural and could not be put to commercial use. He further stated that abadi of village Aujla was about 4 kilometers away from Gurdaspur. Des Raj RW 2 further admitted that there was a private Nursing Home known as Oberoi Hospital, a Steel Factory, a Soap Factory and a few shops on Gurdaspur-Kahnuwan road, but these establishments were within the municipal limits of Gurdaspur and that the said hospital was about 2 kilometers away from the acquired land. The respondents-State also relied upon sale deeds Exs R-3 to R-19 which are detailed below:-

RFA No.1447 of 1990

Exhibit of sale deed.	Dated Land sold	Rate per acre
Ex.R-3	1.6.79 4 Kanals	Rs.14,000.00
Ex.R-4	13.11.79 3Kanals 18Marlas	Rs.23,589.75
Ex.R-5	13.11.79 3Kanals 17Marlas	Rs.23,896.10
Ex.R-6	29.3.79 20 Kanals	Rs.19,200.00
Ex.R-7	16.7.81 2 Kanals 15Marlas	Rs.11,636.36
Ex.R-8	24.12.1981 6 Kanals	Rs.24,000.00
Ex.R-9	6.11.81 11Kanals 1Marla	Rs.24,253.37
Ex.R10	6.1.82 7 Kanals 1Marla	Rs.18,156.02
Ex.R-11	30.6.82 8 Kanals 6 Marlas	Rs.29,419.35
Ex.R-12	2.2.82 13 Kanals	Rs. 9846.15
Ex.R-13	3.11.86 9 Kanals 2 Marlas	Rs.14065.93
Ex.R-14	21.3.83 2 Kanals 11Marlas	Rs.15,686.27
Ex.R-15	25.3.83 3 Kanals 18Marlas	Rs.10,256.41
Ex.R-16	22.2.85 4 Kanals	Rs.12,000.00
Ex.R-17	22.2.85 4 Kanals	Rs.12,000.00
Ex.R-18	18.7.86 16Kanals 16Marlas	Rs.19,285.00
Ex.R-19	10.6.87 12 Kanals	Rs.30,000.00

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -

¶27

Keeping in view the entire evidence on record, learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdapur vide his award dated 13.3.1990 assessed the compensation of the acquired land while observing as under:-

¶28

“ It is true that the abadi of village Aujla is about 3 Kms away from the municipal limits of Gurdaspur. The land acquired though agricultural could be put to residential and commercial purposes. Gurdaspur- Kahnuwan road runs through the acquired land. There is commercial and residential establishments not for away from the acquired land. A railway line passes through the acquired land. As such the potential value of the land in question being put to commercial and residential purposes was fairly high. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the compensation awarded was inadequate. It is very difficult to prepare a foolproof yard stick for assessing the potentiality of the land at the time of the acquisition. On a rough estimate, therefore, I assess Rs. 45,000/- per acre for

¶29

¶30

RFA No.1447 of 1990

¶31

canal irrigated land and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for chahi land. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners”.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State of Punjab contended that the Court below has erred while not considering the sale deeds produced by the State i.e. from Exs. R-3 to R-19 and has illegally assessed the compensation @ Rs.45000/-per acre and Rs.40,000/- per acre of the canal irrigated land and chahi land respectively. In fact, sale deeds Exs. R-3 to R-19 are the sale deeds in which only sale deed Ex. R-19 gives maximum amount of Rs. 30,000/- per acre which is less than the award of the Collector who had awarded Rs. 30,880/- per acre for canal irrigated land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for chahi land. The learned Court below has given reasons in order while discussing the sale deeds Ex. R-3 to Ex.R-19 as under:-

¶33

“The sale instance vide Ex. P-4 cannot squarely be made the basis of the award. In the first place, the land sold was only one Kanal and secondly out of the sale price of Rs. 10,000/- only Rs.1000/- were paid before the Sub Registrar and the remaining amount of Rs.9000/- was said to have been paid prior to the sale deed and there is no proof that any such payment of Rs. 9000/- had really been made to those owners. It is quite well known that such schemes of acquisition of land by the Government get wide circulation long before the actual notification is issued. It may therefore, well be that the sale deed copy Ex.P-4 was prepared in contemplation of the acquisition. Similarly, the instances referred by the learned Govt. Pleader vide Ex. R-3 to Ex.R-19 cannot be made the foundation for assessing the compensation. In the first place, it has not been shown as where said bits of land were situated. After the annulment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, in 1973, there has grown a tendency in the public to show highly inadequate

¶34

¶35

RFA No.1447 of 1990

¶36

sale price in the sale deeds in order to avoid payment of stamp and registration expenses while in fact the actual price of the land is much more. In some cases 1/3^rd of the actual sale price was mentioned in the sale deeds. This fact has to be taken into consideration under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In the circumstances, the price of the land sold vide Exs. R-3 to R-19 must be much higher than that mentioned therein”.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

¶38

appellants/landowners/claimants could not point out any error in the judgment of the Court below for the purpose of further enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings of the Court below, I do not find any merit either in the appeals filed by the State of Punjab or in the appeals filed by the claimants/landowners impugning the award of learned Addl.District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 13.3.1990. Hence,all the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the State of Punjab are dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶40

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶41

November 04,2008 RR

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmeshwari Devi & Ors. Vs Shankar & Ors.

State of Punjab and Anr. Vs Gurmej Kaur and Anr.

State of Punjab Vs Gurmej Kaur

Mohinder Partap Vs the State of Haryana

Gurbax Singh Vs Lachhman Singh & Ors.

Hari Ram Vs State of Haryana & Anr.