Nikka v. State of Punjab & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Balwinder S. Sudan, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for Punjab State Electricity Board. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2170, 2171 to 2174 of 1995; R.F.A. Nos. 95 to 98, 2173 to 2177, 2263 to 2270 of 1996; as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Punjab State Electricity Board, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2170 of 1995. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

10.3.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 109 kanals and 12 marlas of land, situated in the revenue estate of Malerkotla, Hadbast No. 58, for construction of 400 KV Sub Station at Malerkotla. The same was followed by notification dated 16.2.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), assessed the market value of chahi land @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On R.F.A. No. 2170 of 1995 [2] reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,40,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that considering the location of the land, which is in out-skirts of Malerkotla town, the value, as has been assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair. It is not in consonance with the evidence produced on record by the land owners. Sale deeds (Exs. P4, P5 and P8 to P13) have been ignored and so the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 2189 of 1986—Subash Chand v. State of Punjab and another, decided on 26.8.1988, whereby for the land acquired vide notification dated

10.7.1981, the compensation was assessed @ ` 90,000/- per acre. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 10.3.1989 and the land owners are entitled to increase for the time gap of about 8 years in the two notifications. Reference was made to site plan (Ex. P1) produced on record to show the location of the land. It was submitted that the same is located just close to Ludhiana-Malerkotla Highway. In the surroundings, there were number of industrial units and other commercial establishments. The land had great future potential, as it was located just in the out-skirts of the municipal boundary. On a specific query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to any of the sale deeds or the judgment of this court in Subash Chand's case (supra) has been located on any of the site plan produced on record, the answer was in negative. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Punjab State Electricity Board submitted that in fact, there was no material available on record with the learned court below for increasing the amount of compensation from ` 1,20,000/- per acre to ` 1,40,000/- per acre. For the purpose, the learned court below had relied upon sale deeds (Exs. P3, P6 and P7). Sale deeds (Exs. P6 and P7) were registered five months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereas sale deed (Ex. P3) was registered about 8 years prior thereto. Even if those are considered, the value, as has been awarded by the learned court below, cannot be justified. In fact, without there being any plan produced on record showing the location of the land pertaining to the sale deeds, the learned court below could not possibly have placed reliance thereupon. He further submitted that sale deeds (Ex. R2 to Ex. R11) produced on record by the State have been totally ignored, which clearly established that the award of the Collector was just and fair. The prayer was for setting aside the award of the learned court below and restoring that of the Collector. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant R.F.A. No. 2170 of 1995 [3] referred record. As far as the appeals by the land owners are concerned, in my opinion, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. The primary reason therefor is that though eleven sale deeds have been placed on record, but eight out of them were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Though three of them were registered prior thereto, but the land pertaining to none of the sale deeds is located on site plan (Ex. P1) produced on record by the land owners. For the same reason, the judgment in Subash Chand's case (supra) also cannot be considered as even the land pertaining thereto has not been pointed out on the site plan. Accordingly, I do not find that any case has been made out for enhancement of compensation. As far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, considering the fact that the land in question was acquired more than 21 years back and the compensation payable to the land owners was enhanced by the learned court below from ` 1,20,000/- per acre to ` 1,40,000/- per acre, the land in question is located in the out-skirts of Malerkola town, which may not be located on Chandigarh-Malerkotla road, but is quite close to thereto, I do not find any reason to interfere even in the appeals filed by the State. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed.

9.11.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge