O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Harbans Kaur and others
Case Details
R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.7.2010 1) RFA No. 3350 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Harbans Kaur and others 2) RFA No. 1922 of 2002 (O&M) Gurbachan Singh Versus State of Punjab and others 3) RFA No. 2002 of 2002 (O&M) Jagir Singh and another Versus State of Punjab and others 4) RFA No. 2542 of 2002 (O&M) Joginder Singh and another Versus Union of India and others 5) RFA No. 2543 of 2002 (O&M) Darshan Singh Versus Collector Land Acquisition, Jalandhar and others .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellants .....Respondents .....Appellants .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [2] 6) RFA No. 2544 of 2002 (O&M) Shangara Singh Versus Union of India and others 7) RFA No. 2545 of 2002 (O&M) Surjan Singh Versus Union of India and others 8) RFA No. 2546 of 2002 (O&M) Gulzar Singh Versus Union of India and others 9) RFA No. 2547 of 2002 (O&M) Tarsem Singh Versus Union of India and others 10) RFA No. 2699 of 2002 (O&M) Bakhshish Singh Versus Union of India and others 11) RFA No. 3351 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Jagir Singh and others .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [3] 12) RFA No. 3352 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Nirmal Singh (deceased) through LRs and others 13) RFA No. 3353 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs and others 14) RFA No. 3354 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Surjan Singh and others 15) RFA No. 3355 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Gurbachan Singh (deceased) through LRs and others 16) RFA No. 3356 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Charan Singh and others .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [4] 17) RFA No. 3357 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Raj Pal Singh and others 18) RFA No. 3358 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Joginder Singh and others 19) RFA No. 3359 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Piara Singh and others 20) RFA No. 3360 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Kuldeep Kaur and others 21) RFA No. 3361 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Darshan Singh and others 22) RFA No. 3362 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Bakhshish Singh and others .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [5] 23) RFA No. 3363 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Sodha (widow) and others 24) RFA No. 3364 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Tarsem Singh and others 25) RFA No. 3365 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Karnail Singh and others 26) RFA No. 3366 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Tarsem Singh and others 27) RFA No. 3367 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Joginder Singh and others .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [6] 28) RFA No. 3368 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Shri Bhagata (deceased) through LRs and others 29) RFA No. 3369 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Gulzar Singh and others 30) RFA No. 3370 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Surjan Singh and others 31) RFA No. 3371 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Shangara Singh and others 32) RFA No. 3372 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Gurmeet Kaur and others 33) RFA No. 3373 of 2002 (O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Versus Gurdev Singh and others .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [7] 34) RFA No. 3566 of 2002 (O&M) Raj Pal Singh and another Versus Union of India and others 35) RFA No. 3872 of 2002 (O&M) Kuldeep Kaur and others Versus Union of India and others 36) RFA No. 3949 of 2002 (O&M) Tarsem Singh and others Versus Union of India and others 37) RFA No. 3959 of 2002 (O&M) Lal Singh (deceased) through LRs Versus Punjab State and others 38) RFA No. 4005 of 2002 (O&M) Gurmit Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others .....Appellants .....Respondents .....Appellants .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [8] 39) RFA No. 4026 of 2002 (O&M) Avtar Singh and others Versus Punjab State and others 40) RFA No. 4027 of 2002 (O&M) Joginder Singh Versus Union of India and others 41) RFA No. 4130 of 2002 (O&M) Didar Singh Versus State of Punjab and others 42) RFA No. 4131 of 2002 (O&M) Charan Singh Versus State of Punjab and others 43) RFA No. 4132 of 2002 (O&M) Karnail Singh Versus State of Punjab and others 44) RFA No. 1311 of 2003 (O&M) Bhagta (deceased) through LRs and others Versus .....Appellants .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellant .....Respondents .....Appellants Punjab State and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [9] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for Bharat Petroleum Corporation. None for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 44 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short, `the Corporation'), the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 21.8.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 16 kanals and 15 marlas, situated in villages Suchipind and Chak Hussaina Lambapind was acquired for the project of the Corporation. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 20.9.1993, assessed the market value of the acquired land in villages Suchipind and Chak Hussaina @ ` 1,500/- per marla. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,780/- per marla. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that it is a case of no evidence, but still the learned court below went on to enhance the value of the acquired land from ` 1,500/- per marla to ` 1,780/- per marla. The sale deeds produced by the land owners have rightly been discarded by the learned court below, being not of the comparative land. Once there was no material on record, there was no justification for the learned court below to have enhanced the value of the acquired land, as has been done vide impugned award. No one has appeared for the land owners. Heard learned counsel for the Corporation and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners R.F.A. No. 3350 of 2002 [10] produced on record three sale deeds and an agreement to sell (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4), the details of which are extracted below: “Sr. No. Name of Exhibit Land sold/ agreed Sale consideration Date of Rate per ................................................................................................................................................... to be sold transaction marla 1. 2. 3. 4. Ex. P1 (Sale deed) 16 marlas ` 96,000/- 6.3.1991 ` 6,000/- Ex. P2 (Sale deed) 0-3 marlas ` 27,000/- 30.11.1998 ` 9,000/- Ex. P3 (Sale deed) 0-4 marlas ` 28,000/- 4.3.1991 ` 7,000/- Ex. P4 (agreement) 27-1/2 marlas ` 1,37,500/- 21.5.1991 ` 5,000/-” The aforesaid sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P3) are of very small portion of land and cannot be taken into consideration for determining the fair value of the acquired land. Vide agreement to sell (Ex. P4), 27 kanals and ½ marlas of land was sold @ ` 5,000/- per marla. There is nothing on the record that the said agreement was ever acted upon. The land mentioned in the sale deeds and the agreement may have better location as no material has been produced on record to show that the land is situated in the close proximity of the acquired land. The learned court below also noticed the fact that the Collector took into consideration the sale transactions of Suchipind for the period of one year prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The evidence available before the Collector, regarding the sale transaction in village Chak Hussaina Lambapind, was also discussed in the impugned award and on the basis thereof the average price of the acquired land was assessed at ` 1,780/- per marla. The genuineness and relevance of the material, which has been discussed in the award of the learned court below cannot possibly be doubted. The learned court below has not committed any illegality in assessing the compensation on the basis of sale deed of the highest value pertaining to the land of the village under consideration. The same value has rightly been applied for other villages, as it is per chance that the land pertained to two villages, even though it is a compact block located at one place. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Corporation are dismissed. However, as the land owners remained unrepresented, the appeals filed by them are dismissed for non-prosecution. 20.7.2010 mk (Rajesh Bindal) Judge