The High Court dismissed appeals filed by the State of Punjab against an award by the Reference Court in a land acquisition reference. The court held that relying on earlier acquisitions for the same purpose and location did not constitute an error, and the increased compensation was not excessive.
The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RFA No.2627 of 1990 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2627 of 1990
Date of Decision: 12.12.2008
Punjab State through SDO(C)-cum-LAC Dasuya and another
..Appellants.
Vs.
Mansha Ram and others
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab for the appellants.
None for the respondents.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of 5 Regular first appeals, bearing Nos.2627 to 2631 of 1990 filed by the State of Punjab as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
The Chief Engineer, M.P.H.C. Irrigation Works Punjab, Chandigarh vide notification No.1145 dated 28.2.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act'), expressed the intention of the Government to acquire the land for the disposal of excavated earth at the site of power house No.III (MHP) in village Raili and Bhallowal, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur.
SDO (Civil) -cum- Land Acquisition Collector Dasuya announced the award on 16.2.1987 in respect of the land acquired in village Bhallowal and Raili at the following rates :-
Barani @ Rs.10,000/- per acre
Banjar Qadim @ Rs.5000/- per acre
RFA No.2627 of 1990 -2 -
Gair Mumkin @ Rs.5000/- per acre
Besides the award of the land, compensation as determined by the District Forest Officer and the Deputy Director, Horticulture in respect of the standing trees on the acquired land was also allowed along with the damages done to the crops during the process of taking possession.
The land owners/claimants, however, remained unsatisfied with the award of the Collector, therefore, they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act in which it was inter-alia claimed that the compensation is inadequate, the acquired land is situated near the Abadi at a distance of 100 yards and thus, it had potential for development for residential purpose. It was further averred that wheat crop was standing on the acquired land and no compensation was given in that respect. The land has been severed into two or more parts and no compensation has been awarded for the trees standing on the land in question.
On the other hand, in reply, it was mentioned that full proper compensation has already been given to the land owners along with all statutory benefits as per the Amended Act.
After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court redetermined the compensation for Barani land @ Rs.25,000/- per acre, Banjar Qadim @ Rs.18000/- per acre and also allowed severance charges @ 20% of the market value of the land. In order to determine the aforesaid reference, the learned Reference Court relied upon judgment of Sh.M.S.Luna in respect of the land acquired in the year 1981 (Ex.A1) and judgment of the High Court in appeal rendered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Sekhon on 21.8.1989 (Ex.A18). The learned Reference Court found that the purpose of acquisition in the earlier acquisition as well as in
RFA No.2627 of 1990 -3 -
the present acquisition is the same and the land in the present acquisition adjoins the land of the earlier acquisition. Although the land in the earlier acquisition was acquired in the year 1981 and in the present acquisition in the year 1985 yet 12% increase per year has not been allowed in view of the fact that some sale deeds Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 do not indicate any drastic trend of increase in the particular area.
Sh.N.S.Pawar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in not appreciating the sale deeds tendered by the State of Punjab.
After considering the aforesaid argument and having gone through the record as well, I have found that Reference Court has committed no error in relying upon the award of the earlier acquisition vide which land of the same village was acquired for the same purpose and the compensation was assessed on 29.3.1984 (Ex.A1) @ Rs.21,080/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.10,540/- per acre for Banjar Qadim. It was further redetermined on 21.8.1989 (Ex.A18) by the High Court to the tune of Rs.21,080/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.15810/- per acre for Banjar Qadim land. Thus, in my view, for a gap of 4 years, the learned Reference Court has only increased a sum of Rs.3920/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.2190/- per acre for Banjar Qadim while determining the compensation which is neither on the higher side nor excessive.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and thus, the same are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
12.12.2008 Meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court committed an error in relying on earlier acquisition awards to determine compensation.
Whether the increase in compensation awarded by the Reference Court for a gap of four years was excessive.
Punjab State through SDO(C)-cum-LAC Dasuya and another
Mansha Ram and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
