Waryam Singh Vs State of Punjab

By way of present appeal, ch a llenge has been laid to th e judgment date d 24.12.1994 passed by th e learned Additional Distric t Judge, Patiala (for short ’Reference Co u rt’) whereby the referenc e petition filed u nder Section 18 of the L and Acquisition Act, 189 4 (hereinafter re f erred to as ‘the Act’) by the appellants-landowners, seeking enhan c ement of compensation was partly allowed. 2. Bri e fly stating, certain land, situ a ted within the revenue estat e of Village Naraingarh, Tehsil Rajpura, Distric t Patiala was acquired for th e public purpos e , namely, for construction of Bassi Distributory vid e notifications d a ted 30.03.1988 and 02.05.1 9 88 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respecti v ely of the Act. The Land A c quisition Collector (for shor t ‘LAC’) passed Award No.338/P_SYL date d 13.01.1989 assessing th e market value at the rate of Rs.60,000/ - per acre for Chahi land, Rs.50,080/- pe r acre (Barani) for Rousli lan d and Rs.35,000/- per acre fo r Gair Mumkin land along with other statutory benefits.

¶14

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶15

RFA-568-1995 (O&M)

¶16

2

¶17

The appellants-landowners, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- per acre as the same being situated near the road of village Naraingarh, had significant potential value. Moreover, it was pleaded that as a result of acquisition, the land belonging to the appellants-landowners was bifurcated, causing great loss to them, thus they were entitled to damages against severance as well.

¶18

Upon notice, the same was contested by the respondentsState wherein it was pleaded that the value of the acquired land was not more than Rs.60,000/- per acre and thus, the compensation awarded by the LAC to the appellants-landowners was adequate.

¶19

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court:-

¶20

“1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPA

¶21

2. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled? OPA

¶22

3. To what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled on account of severance of land? OPA

¶23

4. Relief.”

¶24

After considering the evidence, the learned Reference Court, vide award dated 24.12.1994 enhanced the market value to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.80,000/- per acre for Rousli land and Rs.55,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.

¶25

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶26

RFA-568-1995 (O&M)

¶27

3

¶28

Aggrieved of the aforesaid award dated 24.12.1994 passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellants-landowners filed the present appeal.

¶29

Impugning the aforementioned award, learned counsel for the appellants-landowners submits that the learned Reference Court went wrong having discarded the previous award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) relating to the same revenue estate of village Naraingarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala merely for the reason that the purpose of acquisition therein was different than the present one. Learned counsel submits that the market value was required to be re-assessed while placing reliance upon the award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) in the present case.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-Sate submits that the award passed by the learned Reference Court was based on proper appreciation of material available on record and thus, the same calls for no interference. Learned State counsel also places reliance upon decision dated 26.08.2010 passed by this Court in RFA-2627-1993 titled as “ Dyal Singh and Ors. VS. State of Punjab and Anr.” to submit that the previous award dated 04.08.1992 passed by the learned Reference Court on the basis of which the market value in the case in hand came to be assessed, was even upheld by this Court and thus, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 11. The acquisition in the present case pertains to the revenue estate of village Naraingarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala which commenced vide notification dated 30.03.1988 issued under Section 4 of TEJWINDER SINGH the Act. The Acquisition was carried out for the public purpose namely, for 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶32

RFA-568-1995 (O&M)

¶33

4

¶34

construction of Bassi Distributory. It is a matter of record that relating to a later notification dated 16.04.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act, regarding revenue estate of village Naraingarh, the market value was assessed at a uniform rate of @Rs.1,75,000/-. In the humble opinion of this Court, the learned Reference Court rather than placing reliance upon the determination rendered by the learned Reference Court in relation to the abutting and adjoining villages, ought to have relied upon the award Ex.A-3 dated 15.02.1994 which pertained to the same revenue estate as the land under acquisition in the present case. Further, the notifications in the two acquisitions were also in close proximity in terms of time period as the acquisition in the present case commenced vide notification dated 30.03.1988 whereas, the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the subsequent acquisition pertaining to the award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3), was issued on 16.04.1988.

¶35

11.2 Further, the learned Reference Court disregarding the previous award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) merely for the reason that the purpose acquisition therein was for different; was unjustified. The decision rendered by this Court in Dyal Singh and Others (Supra), was not relevant for the determination of the market value in the case in hand as the same pertained to completely different revenue estate of village Chhal, Tehsil Rajpura. Moreover, neither the Registry of this Court, nor the learned counsel representing the parties were able to clarify as to whether the award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) was ever assailed before this Court.

¶36

In such circumstances, the award dated 15.02.1994 (Ex.A-3) being the determination made by the Court relating to the same revenue TEJWINDER SINGH estate of village Naraingarh, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala arising out of 2026.02.24 18:40 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶37

RFA-568-1995 (O&M)

¶38

5

¶39

notification dated 16.04.1988, in which the appellants themselves were also appended as the landowners of the acquired land, needs to be relied upon. Accordingly, the appellants-landowners are held entitled for the uniform market value of Rs.1,75,000/- per acre as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case.

¶40

Besides it, the landowner-appellant shall also be entitled for all the statutory benefits and interest, especially the interest on solatium.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of.

¶42

15. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court.

¶43

16. P ending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

16.02.2026

Tejwinder

(HARKESH MANUJA)

JUDGE