The potential for urban development and the inclusion of land within Municipal limits can justify a higher market value assessment in land acquisition cases.

V.K.Bali, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeals 1199 of 1987, 1246 of 1987, 1378 of 1987 1548 of 1987, 1549 of 1987, 1550 of 1987, 1551 of 1987, 1623 of 1987 and 1722 of 1987, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. The Punjab Government vide notification dated 26th/27th April 1982, published in an extraordinary gazette on the dates mentioned above, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,-(hereinafter to be referred to as Act), acquired 265 Bighas and 11 Biswas of land situate in Bhatinda Town, District Bhatinda. The land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 4th February 1983, assessed the value of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 as per nature of the land as follows :-

Barani Rs. 40,000/- per acre

Nehri Rs. 54,320/- per acre

Chahi Rs. 24,800/- per acre

Gair Mumkin Rs. 72,0G0/- per acre

3. The claimants, on account of in-adequacy of market value determined by the Collector in the manner fully indicated above preferred references to the Court under Section 18 of the Act.

4. The claim as put up by the Appellants was- to assess the market value of the land at Rs. 100/- per square yard and the appellants-claimants clamoured for fixation of market value at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard primarily on the ground that the land subject matter of acquisition had potential of being converted into commercial, industrial and residential complex for the reason that the same was located within the Municipal limits of Bhatinda city and was in close vicinity of Industrial Focal Point, Punjab Ceramix and Punjab Spinning and Weaving Mills etc. and was at the intersection of two roads i. e. Bhatinda-Badal Road and Bhatinda-Dabwali Road.

5. The claim aforesaid was, however, hotly contested by the respondent-State and it was pleaded that the price assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was fair, reasonable and in accordance with the prevalent price at the time of notification. The case of claimants that there were residential houses or factories near the acquired land as also that the same was within Municipal limits and had potential for urbanisation was also refused.

6. After trial, on the solitary but all important issue with regard to the market value of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda dismissed the claim by holding that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was fair and reasonable and called for no enhancement. The claimants being aggrieved of the judgment rendered by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda have preferred the present appeals.

7. During the pendency of appeals in this Court, an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 2? read with Section 151 Cr. P C. was filed by the claimants and before the matter is dealt any further, it would be necessary to dispose of the same. Notice of this application was given to the respondent-State, vide order dated 19th July, 1991 and the case was adjourned to 20th of August, 1991 for reply and arguments on the application for additional evidence as also of the main case. Till date, no reply has been filed nor any request has been made for adjournment enabling the respondent-State to file reply nor any one has appeared to oppose either the application or even otherwise to defend the case. It is. however, true that the matter was heard even prior to the filing of the application for additional evidence on which date appearance was put in on behalf of the respondent-State and the matter was contested. The claimants pleaded and also made every effort to prove before the trial Court that their land was within Municipal limits. They produced on record Exhibit A. 133 certificate issued by the Municipal Engineer showing that if not all, at least part of the land was within Municipal limits. They also examined Kuldip Kumar Clerk from Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and made their own statements