Dismissed

Gurdip Singh v. Improvement Trust and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2010CWP/17484/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed six collective writ petitions challenging a land acquisition compensation award. Upholding a Division Bench order, the court ruled that uniform valuation for contiguous land was correct, post-notification sales instances were too distant to support enhancement claims, and no merit existed to interfere with the Tribunal's finding. Petitions were dismissed

What did the court decide?

None. Petitions dismissed.

Gurdip Singh Vs Improvement Trust and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Date of Decision: May 20, 2010

¶3

1. CWP No. 9153 of 2005 (O&M)

¶4

Gunwant Kaur Versus	…Petitioner
Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others	…Respondents
2. CWP No. 17474 of 2005 (O&M)
Surjeet Kaur Versus	…Petitioner
Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others	…Respondents
3. CWP No. 17484 of 2005 (O&M)
Gurdip Singh Versus	…Petitioner
Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others	…Respondents
4. CWP No. 17492 of 2005 (O&M)
Balwant Singh Romana Versus	…Petitioner
Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others	…Respondents
5. CWP No. 17495 of 2005 (O&M)
Darshana Devi Versus	…Petitioner
Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others	…Respondents

¶5

CWP Nos. 9153, 17474, 17484, 17492, 17495 & 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

¶6

¶7

CWP No. 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

Kashalya Devi

…Petitioner

Versus

Improvement Trust, Bathinda and others

¶12

…Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶14

Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶15

Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶19

This order shall dispose of aforementioned six petitions filed by the land owners, challenging award dated 11.6.2002 (P-2) passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Bathinda (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The petitioner(s) have sought enhancement amount of compensation of the acquired land.

¶20

Facts of these petitions are that on 1.9.1993, a notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was issued for acquisition of 49.50 acres of land for the development of a scheme known ‘49.50 Acres Development Scheme’, which was formulated by the Improvement Trust, Bathinda-respondent No. 1 (for brevity, ‘the Trust’) under Section 24 read with Section 28(2) of the Act. On 31.8.1994, another

¶21

CWP Nos. 9153, 17474, 17484, 17492, 17495 & 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

notification under Section 42(2) of was issued by the Punjab Government sanctioning a development scheme. Pursuant thereto land measuring 49.50 acres was acquired for the development of said Scheme. The Collector-respondent No. 3 determined compensation for the acquired land in two blocks - at the rate of 20.52 lacs per acre (about Rs.424/- per sq. yard) for gair mumkin and Rs. 8 lac per acre for barani land, vide award dated 29.8.1996. The Trust did not challenge the award but the land owners preferred reference to the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act. On 11.6.2002, the Tribunal passed the award holding that the entire land was required to be evaluated at a uniform rate of Rs. 20.52 lacs per acre (P-2). The findings of the Tribunal about the location and nature of the land reads thus:-

¶24

“12. ……The oral statements of Devinder Singh (AW.1), Jatinder Kumar (AW.2), Harnek Singh (AW.7), Abhey Singla, Advocate (AW.8) and A.C.Goyal (AW.9) leave no doubt in our mind that the land in question has been situated within the municipal limits of district Bathinda at the time of acquisition of the land. Near the acquired land, there has been developed residential colonies and other industrial and commercial properties. At the relevant time, the land was lying vacant and was not being used for agricultural purposes. The land in question could be used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes.

¶25

xxx xxx xxx

¶26

CWP Nos. 9153, 17474, 17484, 17492, 17495 & 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

…….In this manner we have found that the whole of the land was lying vacant and was not being used for agricultural purposes. The land has been proved to be even. Respondent has not produced any evidence that they spent money on making the land even and filled ditches and pits. The Collector has not mentioned in the award that the land was low lying and it had pits. In such a situation there was no justification for classifying the land into the Gairmumkin land and Barani land. The learned Land Acquisition Collector could not grant different types of compensation for gairmumkin and barani land when the land is located at the same place and was fit for residential, commercial and industrial use. The Land Acquisition Collector could not treat the equals as unequal and grant compensation at different rates without assigning any cogent reason. The Land Acquisition Collector did not assign any reason for granting compensation at different rates when the land was acquired by the same notification. ……”

¶29

On behalf of the claimants reliance was placed, interalia, on the sale deeds dated 4.12.1993 and 18.1.1993 respectively (Exhibits A-5 & A-6) showing the rate of about Rs. 500/- per Sq. Yard. The Tribunal held that the said instances could not be made basis for determining market value of the entire land as they related to small plots of land. For the same reason, instances Exhibits A-11 to A-13 were also not made the basis for grant of compensation.

¶30

CWP Nos. 9153, 17474, 17484, 17492, 17495 & 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

¶31

¶32

Civil miscellaneous applications have been filed in each case of the present bunch of petitions seeking disposal of the petitions. A perusal of the application shows that the award dated 11.6.2002 passed by the Tribunal was subject matter of challenge in a number of petitions which were grouped together. On 3.3.2009, a bunch of 134 petitions came up for consideration before the Division Bench including CWP No. 15326 of 2002 (Bhikam Singh and another v. The District Judge, Bathinda and others) being the lead case. The Division Bench (of which one of us, Jitendra Chauhan, J. was a member) affirmed the award passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petitions vide order dated 3.3.2009, by observing as under:-

¶33

“8. We do not find any ground for interfering with the finding of the Tribunal that the entire land is compact and has to be valued at uniform rate. This being the position, judgments relied upon on behalf of land owners are fully applicable. Thus, we do not find any merit to allow the writ petitions filed by the Improvement Trust. The same will stand dismissed. 9. Coming now to the writ petitions filed by the land owners, only contention raised on their behalf is that there are sale instances Exhibits A-11 to A-13, which are of the year 1997, wherein land sold to Cotton Corporation of India at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq. yard. By referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in C himanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, A.I.R. 1988

¶34

CWP Nos. 9153, 17474, 17484, 17492, 17495 & 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

¶35

¶36

S.C. 1653 it was submitted that even post notification instances could be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and not motivated by the acquisition itself.

¶37

We are unable to hold that case of the land owners falls under the parameters law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for taking into account by post notification instances, as the said instances are four years after the acquisition and not “very proximate”.

¶38

Acquisition was in the year 1993 and sale instances were in the year 1997. The said instances cannot, thus, be basis for determining compensation as on 4.9.2003.

¶39

We are also of the view that if two views are

¶40

possible, finding of tribunal will not be liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶41

Thus, no ground is made for allowing the

¶42

writ petitions filed by the land owners also. The same will also stand dismissed.

¶43

All the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

¶44

Therefore, for parity of reasoning we also dismiss these petitions in terms of Division Bench judgment dated 3.3.2009, rendered in the case of Bhikam Singh and another (supra) and connected cases.

¶45

CWP Nos. 9153, 17474, 17484, 17492, 17495 & 17502 of 2005 (O&M)

¶46

¶47