The court considered evidence of the land's potential and the impact of acquisition on the remaining land to determine the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

V.K. Bali, J. - We propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeals filed under Clause X of Letters Patent bearing Nos. 518 of 1986 to 528 of 1986 and 656 of 1986 by a common order, as all these appeals emanate from same order rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 11.4.1986 as also for the reason that same questions of law and fact are involved in all these appeals.

2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals reveal that Government of Punjab issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as, the Act) on 19.3.1981 intending to acquired land for public purposes, namely, for construction of Dholbaha Dam Reservoir. Follow up declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 24.3.1991. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated 25.2.1982, assessed the market value of different kinds of land as under :-

Clause of land Rate awarded per marla

Cho, Abi, Abadi, School Adda and Minor Rs. 24/-

Barani, Sarak Rasta and Chahi Rs. 16/-

Bagh Barani Rs. 32/-

Banjar Jadid Rs. 12/-

Khad, Pahar, Banjar Qadim and Mandir Rs. 8/-

3. Being dissatisfied of inadequate compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants (hereinafter to be referred as the respondents) moved petitions under Section 18 of the Act pleading therein that the acquired land was near the Dholbaha Abadi and in the vicinity of the same there were School, Forest Rest House and Shopping Centre. Trees were grown on the acquired land which was the source of income of the respondents. They claimed that Rs. 6, 000/- per marla should have been assessed as market value of their land at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued.

4. The claim of the respondents was contested by the State. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the followings issues :-

1) Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is inadequate ? OPA

2) If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the reasonable compensation due to the claimant ? OPA

3) Relief.

5. In support of their claim, the respondents examined AW-1 Harkishan Singh to prove the site plan Ex. A depicting the acquired land in the yellow lines and unacquired land in blue colour. Abadi Deh was depicted in red colour and school, rest house and shops in black lines. AW-2 Major Ram Singh, one of the respondents, stated that the acquired land belongs to him and his brothers. The acquired land was yielding Rs. 25,000/- or Rs. 30,000/- per annum and after acquisition they have lost the source of income. According to him, Banjar land should have been assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per kanal, while Chahi land at Rs. 3,000/- per kanal. AW-3 Raghunath Singh, one of the respondents, got the site plan Ex. A-1 prepared from the Draftsman, pertaining to his own land. He stated that there was no access or passage to his unacquired area. He, however, stated that Barani land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per kanal, while Pahar area at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per kanal, whereas Abi land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per kanal. AW-4 Revenue Patwari proved Akshajra Ex. AW-4/A and stated that no access would be left to the unacquired land of the respondents after the Dam is filled with water. Another respondent, AW-5 Rajesh Kumar Bhasin, stated that irrigated land in the village could fetch market value of Rs. 10,000/- per kanal, Barani land at Rs. 8,000/- per kanal and Gair Mumkin Pahar at Rs. 5,000/- per kanal. He used to earn Rs. 1.5 lac out of the Jungle. The respondents also tendered into evidence copies of Mutations Exs. A-5 to A-11, Jamabandis Exs. A-12, A-13, A-15 and A-16 and copy of Khasra Girdwari Ex. A- 14. In rebuttal, the appellants (hereinafter to be referred as the State) tendered copies of Mutations Exs. R-1 to R-10 in evidence. Counsel for the respondents made statement on 26.3.1986 that the Land Acquisition Collector had given separate award regarding the trees and the constructions existing in the acquired land and t