SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(P&H) 1569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ARUN PALLI, J.
Raghunath Singh and others – Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondents
RFA NO. 2155 OF 1990 (O&M
Decided On : 07-11-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Claimant/Landowners Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate, Mr. Rajan Bhargava, Advocate, for Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Standing Counsel for UOI, Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, Mr. R.S. Longia, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI

The central legal point established in the judgment is the lack of basis for the increase awarded by the Reference Court and the entitlement of the claimant/landowners to statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Assessment of acquired land - Section 4, Section 6, Section 18, Section 23(1-A), Section 28-A - The court discussed the assessment of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on judicial precedents and past acquisitions. The court highlighted the erroneous increase awarded by the Reference Court and emphasized the lack of basis for the assessment. The court also addressed the denial of statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) to the claimant/landowners and affirmed their entitlement to additional market value in line with the provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The acquired land was assessed at different rates through separate awards, leading to appeals by both the claimant/landowners and the Union of India. The claimant/landowners sought further enhancement in compensation, while the Union of India appealed to set aside the impugned awards.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the increase awarded by the Reference Court to be without basis and unsustainable. It also addressed the denial of statutory benefits to the claimant/landowners and affirmed their entitlement to additional market value. The court emphasized the lack of evidence to support the increase in land value and highlighted the erroneous assessment method adopted by the Reference Court.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the assessment of compensation for the acquired land, the denial of statutory benefits to the claimant/landowners, and the sustainability of the increase awarded by the Reference Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of basis for the increase awarded by the Reference Court, the entitlement of the claimant/landowners to statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), and the lack of evidence to support the increase in land value.

Final Decision: The appeals/cross-objections filed by the claimant/landowners and the appeals preferred by the Union of India were disposed of, with the impugned awards being modified accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN PALLI, J.

1. Vide this order and judgment, I shall decide a batch of 26 appeals, of which 11 appeals as also two cross-objections have been preferred by the claimant/landowners and the rest 15 appeals have been filed by the Union of India. Although all these appeals as also the cross-objections have been filed against two separate awards dated 08.06.1990 and 17.09.1990, vide which the acquired land was assessed at different rates, i.e. Rs.1,400/- per marla and Rs.1,625/- per marla, respectively, but as the matter arises out of the same acquisition, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, by consensus, the facts are being culled from RFA No. 2155 of 1990, titled “Raghunath Singh and others v. Union of India and others”.

2. Vide notification, dated 23.01.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a land situated in village Mamoon (H.B. No. 378), Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, was acquired for defence purposes. The final declaration under Section 6 was published on 10.07.1987. Vide Award No. 22, dated 30.12.1988, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the land, categorized, as Barani-I & II at Rs.27,000/- per acre; Banjar Qadeem at Rs.14,000/- per acre; and Gair Mumkin at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the assessment as also the compensation, the claimant/landowners filed objections under Section 18 to the award rendered by the Collector. Resultantly, the dispute was referred to the Civil Court for determination of the true value of the acquired land. On a consideration of the matter in issue, the Reference Court relied upon a judicial precedent, i.e. a judgment of this Court, dated 31.01.1989 (Ex. P-9), vide which the land situated in the same village, acquired vide notification dated 22.12.1969, for the same purpose, was assessed @ Rs.350/- per marla. But as the notification under Section 4 in the present proceedings was issued on 23.01.1987, i.e. after a span of 18 years, the Reference Court awarded 4½ times increase for the time difference between the two notifications, to assess its true value. Accordingly, vide award dated 08.06.1990, the claimant/landowners were awarded compensation at Rs.1,625/- per marla. Whereas, subsequently vide separate awards of an even date, i.e. 17.09.1990, in few of the land references, the Reference Court awarded 4½ times increase and assessed the acquired land at the same rate, i.e. Rs.1,625/- per marla. Whereas, in rest of the cases, the Reference Court awarded only four times increase, and the compensation was awarded @ Rs.1,400/- per marla. Further, I may also point out that RFA Nos. 3003, 3006 and 3007 of 2011 have been filed by the Union of India, impugning the award dated 08.04.1991, whereby the Reference Court, while re-determining the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, had awarded the same compensation, i.e. Rs.1,400/- per marla, to the claimants. RFA No. 1601 of 1991 is filed by the landowners, whose claims were also re-determined under Section 28-A, seeking further enhancement. Whereas, in RFA No. 1430 of 1991, filed by the Union of India, award dated 17.09.1990, as also the order dated 09.01.1991, vide which the review application moved by the claimants was accepted, have since been impugned. That is how, as indicated above, the parties are in appeal before this Court. Of course, the claimant/landowners seek further enhancement in the compensation. Whereas, the Union of India has appealed to set aside the impugned awards.

3. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior counsel for the claimant/landowners submits that the evidence on record shows that a part of the revenue estate of village Mamoon, was included within the municipal limits of Pathankot. The site plan Ex. P-2 showed that Manoj Nursing Institute and Hospital was situated adjacent to the acquired land. Likewise, Adarsh Bhartiya College, Glacier Factory, several other commercial godowns, nationalized bank and a Government High School was also situated in the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top