Back
2004 Supreme(P&H) 1133
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Sarwan Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Regular First Appeal No. 874 of 1997,
Decided On : OCTOBER 6, 2004
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering sale transactions and sale instances in determining the market value of acquired land, as well as the legal principles related to the compensation for fruit bearing trees.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Land Acquisition - 1894 Act, Section 54 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 4, 6, 18, 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and their interpretation in relation to the determination of market value, compensation for trees and superstructures, and statutory benefits. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of sale-deeds, the relevance of sale transactions, and the determination of market value based on legal precedents.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from awards passed by the Additional District Judge in relation to the acquisition of land for setting up an Industrial Focal Point. The claimants sought further enhancement of compensation, while the Corporation sought to set aside the enhancement granted. The claimants filed applications for compensation and benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Additional District Judge erred in determining the market price of the acquired land by ignoring the sale instances and the relevance of sale transactions. The court also held that the judge's conclusion on the compensation for fruit bearing trees was legally unsustainable and set aside the awards with a direction for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues included the determination of market value, entitlement to enhancement of compensation, compensation for trees and superstructures, and statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of sale transactions, the relevance of sale instances, and the determination of market value in accordance with legal precedents. The court also considered the legal principles established in previous judgments related to the compensation for fruit bearing trees.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the impugned awards were set aside with a direction to the learned Additional District Judge to pass fresh awards after reconsidering the evidence and keeping in view the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) arise out of awards dated 13.1,1997, 14.1.1997, 16.1,3997 and 20.1.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar in relation to acquisition of land failing in the revenue estates of Villages Singhpura and Chanalon, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. While the landowner (hereinafter described as the claimants) have prayed for further enhancement of the compensation, the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (for short, the Corporation), on whose behalf the land was acquired by the State Government, has prayed for setting aside the enhancement granted by Additional District Judge, Ropar.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from R.F.A. No. 1461 of 1997 - Nasib Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., because arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the parties with reference to that appeal
3. The Government of Punjab acquired 29,53 acres of land situated in Village Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar vide notifications dated 27.3.1991 and 23.1.1992 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act for a public purpose, namely, setting up of an Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon. Land Acquisition Collector, Industries Department, Punjab vide his award dated 21.9.1992 determined the market value of the land at the following rates:
_______________________________________
Chahi : Rs. 1,78,078/-per acre
Barnai : Rs. 1,33,536/- per acre
Banjar : Rs. 89,024/- per acre
Gair Mumkin : Rs. 44,512/-per acre
_______________________________________
He also awarded compensation for fruit bearing trees.
4 Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants filed application under Section 18 of the Act and prayed for grant of compensation at the rate of 10 lacs per acre. They also claimed enhanced compensation for fruit and timber trees in the following terms:
i)
53 Guava trees
Rs. 1,90,000/-
ii)
3 Mango
Rs. 20,000/-
iii)
3 Aarroo
Rs. 10,000/-
iv)
1 Nakh
v)
1 Anar
Rs. 20,000/-
vi)
1 Alubukhara
vii)
3 Desi Mango
Rs. 50,000/-
ix)
2 Lemon
Rs. 15,000/-
x)
1 Galgal
xi)
1 Tunt
Rs. 15,000/-
xii)
1 Neem
xiii)
16 Trees
Rs. 1 lac
5. Telu alias Tirlok Singh, one of the claimants, pleaded for award of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for 65 fruit bearing Gauva trees.
6. In lieu of standing crops, the claimants prayed for award of the following compensation:
i) 1 acre Gajar and Mooli Rs. 15,000/-
ii) 1/2 acre Barsin |
iii) 1/2 acre Maki Bajra | Rs. 5,000/-
iv) 1-1/2 acre Sugarcane Rs. 15,000/-
v) 1-1/2 acre Harhar Rs. 5,000/-
7 In the end, the claimants pleaded for grant of benefits in terms of Section 23 (1-A) etc. as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984.
8. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State Government, it was pleaded that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was just, fair and adequate and the claimants are not entitled to enhancement. However, it was admitted that the claimants are entitled to receive solartum at the rate of 30% and additional market value of 12%. Similar written statement was filed on behalf of the Corporation.
9. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues:
"1. What was the market value of land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to that enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent? OPP
3. Whether, the applicants are entitled for compensation in respect of trees and tubewell etc.? OPP
4. Relief."
10. The claimants examined Jasbir Singh (PW. 1), Amar Singh (PW.2), Gurcharan Singh, Patwari (PW.3), Tejwinder Singh (PW.4) and Nasib Singh (PW.5). They also produced documentary evidence in the form of copies of sale-deeds, site plans etc. The respondents examined M
