Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.S.Tewatia and Pritam Singh Pattar JJ.
Ram Singh
Versus
Punjab State Now Haryana State
First Appeals No. 535 of 1966,548 of 1966,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 24, 1975
LAND ACQUISITION - COMPENSATION - MARKET VALUE OF LAND - POTENTIAL VALUE - TREES STANDING ON ACQUIRED LAND - OWNERSHIP - PRICE - RESTRICTIONS ON RIGHTS OF OWNERS TO CUT TREES ETC. - NOTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE PUNJAB LAND PRESERVATION ACT, 1900.
Fact of the Case:
The Government acquired 108 acres of land in V. Khudalisher and 2099 acres of land in village Kansal, Tehsil Kharar, District Ambala, at a public expense and for a public purpose, namely, for the execution of soil conservation and other important works in the Catchment Area of Sukhna Lake, Chandigarh and for raising a green belt around the Capital. Land measuring 513 Bighas 11 Biswas belonging to Ram Singh, Hari Singh and Bhajan Singh appellants of Appeal No. 535 of 1966, situated in village Kansal was acquired by these notifications. Land measuring 308 Bighas and 13 Biswas belonging to Chhotu and others appellants of appeal No. 548 of 1966 situated in village Kansal was acquired by the same notifications for the same purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per acre for this land.
Finding of the Court:
The market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is fixed at the following rates: Barani land Rs. 744/- per acre Banjar Qadim land Rs. 500/- per acre Ghair Mumkin land Rs. 500/- per acre The decision of the Additional District Judge regarding the price of Banjar Qadim and Ghair Mumkin land on issue No. 1 is modified as mentioned above. The appellants are entitled to get the price of the trees at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre from the respondent-State of Punjab. The decision of the Additional District Judge on issue No. 1 is modified to the above extent.
Issues: 1. Whether the trees standing on the acquired land are not the property of the petitioners and what is the proper amount of compensation payable for them, if they are the property of the petitioners? 2. Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector in this case is inadequate and if so, what is the proper amount of compensation payable to the petitioners for the property acquired ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The market value of the land in dispute at the time of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is to be taken into account and not thereafter. Any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired are not to be taken into consideration in determining the potential value of the land in dispute. 2. The restrictions imposed on the rights of the owners-appellants and other proprietors to deal with the trees vide notifications Exhibits R-1 to R-4, and other factors, including that there were only shrubs and not trees in a large area and also the size of the big and small trees, I think the price of the trees worked out at the rate of Rs. 2/- per acre would be just and proper.
Final Decision: Both the appeals are partly accepted and it is held that the appellants of these appeals are entitled to get compensation at the following rates: (1) For Barani land @ Rs. 744/- per acre (2) For Banjar Qadim land @ Rs. 500/- per acre (3) For Ghair Mumkin land @ Rs. 500/- per acre Besides this, they are also entitled to the price of the trees situated in the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre. It is further held that in addition to the market value of the land as provided above, the appellants are also awarded a sum of 15 per cent. On the enhanced amount of compensation in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition vide sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants are also awarded interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the following rates for the following periods: (a) From the date of taking of possession of the land till 30-6-1967 at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum. (The rate of interest was reduced to 4 per cent. by Punjab Act No. II of 1954 with effect from 9-1-1954). (b) With effect from 1-7-1967 till the date of payment of the enhanced amount at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. (The rate of interest was enhanced to 6 per cent. w. e. f. 1-7-1967 with retrospective effect by Punjab Act No. VII of 1969). Under the circumstances of these appeals, there will be no order as to costs in both the appeals.
PRITAM SINGH PATTAR, J.
1. By this judgment the following two regular first appeals which are directed against two separate awards dated August 29, 1966, of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, will be disposed of, as common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals:-
(1) Ram Singh and others V/s. Punjab State, R. F. A. No. 535 of 1966.
(2) Chhotu and others V/s. Punjab State, R. F. A. No. 548 of 1966 .
2. In pursuance of the Punjab Government Notification No. 1448-Ft-IV-63/744, dated March 12, 1963, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , and declaration issued vide Notification No. 1782-Ft-IV/63/898, dated March 18, 1963, under Section 6 of that Act, the Government acquired 108 acres of land in V. Khudalisher and 2099 acres of land in village Kansal, Tehsil Kharar, District Ambala, at a public expense and for a public purpose, namely, for the execution of soil conservation and other important works in the Catchment Area of Sukhna Lake, Chandigarh and for raising a green belt around the Capital. Land measuring 513 Bighas 11 Biswas belonging to Ram Singh, Hari Singh and Bhajan Singh appellants of Appeal No. 535 of 1966, situated in village Kansal was acquired by these notifications. Land measuring 308 Bighas and 13 Biswas belonging to Chhotu and others appellants of appeal No. 548 of 1966 situated in village Kansal was acquired by the same notifications for the same purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per acre for this land. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Singh, Hari Singh and Bhajan Singh appellants filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge alleging that the compensation awarded to them was very meagre, that the price of Banjar Qadim land should have been assessed at Rs. 500/- per Bigha and Rs. 150/- per Bigha for Ghair Mumkin land. It was also urged that the Collector did not award them any compensation for the trees standing in the land, which belonged to them. They maintained that they used to derive considerable income by selling Babar grass growing on this land, but no compensation was also allowed to them for that. The Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge for deciding the objections of Ram Singh and others appellants. The Punjab State contested the objections of the appellants. It was pleaded that the trees standing on the land belonged to the Forest Department as that area was under the management of that Department. All the allegations made in the petition of the appellants were controverted. This reference was entrusted for decision to the Additional District Judge, Ambala, by the District Judge. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Additional District Judge:-
(1) Whether the trees standing on the acquired land are not the property of the petitioners and what is the proper amount of compensation payable for them, if they are the property of the petitioners?
(2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Collector in this case is inadequate and if so, what is the proper amount of compensation, payable to the petitioners for the property acquired ?
(3) Relief.
3. Chhotu and others, appellants of Appeal No. 548 of 1966 also filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector. Practically on the same allegations and a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge for deciding those objections. In that case also the Punjab State contested the allegations made in the petition, and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Additional District Judge:-
(1) Whether the trees standing on the acquired land are not the property of the petitioners and what is the proper amount of compensation payable for them, if they are the property of the petitioners?
(2) Whether the compensation awarded
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
