The main legal point established in the judgment is that all landowners are entitled to compensation at the same rate for a common purpose acquisition, and the potentiality of the land to be developed for residential or commercial areas should be considered for market value assessment.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

1. The present judgment shall dispose 15 appeals i.e. RFA Nos. 3154 of 2003, 2580 to 2584, 2999, 3000, 4556, 5560 of 2001 & 853, 1286, 2716 to 2718 of 2002, which arise out of the Award dated 30.11.2000 passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. The facts are being taken from RFA No.3154 of 2003 Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Punjab'.

2. Vide the impugned Award, the market value of the land which was acquired vide notification dated 15.12.1988 under Section 4 (1) of Act measuring 227 kanals 2 marlas in village Maur Mandi for setting up of a Cattle Fair Ground, the assessment was made as under:-

“(i) Rs.25,000/- per acre for the Nehri land;

(ii) Rs.16,000/- per acre for the Barani land;

(iii) Rs.50,000/- per acre for the Ghair Mumkin land”

3. However, an exception was also made regarding the landowners Ashwani Kumar and Ravi Kumar who are appellants in RFA Nos.2580 of 2001 and 853 of 2002 and who were vendees of two sale deeds dated 05.07.1982 (Ex.A5 and A6) and they were given the benefit of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 100/- per square foot), which was on the basis of granting 12% increase on the sale deed in which the value had been assessed @ Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 60/- per square foot)

4. The primary arguments which have been raised by the land owners for enhancement

(i) is one that the land in question was admittedly falling within the municipal limits of Maur Mandi and, therefore, the enhancement should have been not on the account of the type of land, but on per square yard as per potentiality of the land in question.

(ii) The second argument had been raised that once two land owners from the acquired land were being given the benefit of the market value, as per the sale deeds (Ex.A5 and A6), the other land owners could not be denied the same rate.

(iii) The third argument which has also been raised is that a cumulative increase should have been granted instead of a flat rate of 12%.

(iv) Fourthly, it was argued that since 227 kanals 2 marlas of land was acquired, it being a large chunk of land and it was being used for a cattle fair ground, the cut of development would be nominal as such, since the usage as such did not entail any major loss of land.

(v) Lastly, it was argued that interest has been restricted only on the compensation and the statutory benefits which provided for the element of interest on such market value under Section 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) had not been granted and, therefore, the said aspect was required to be clarified, keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in 'Sunder Vs. Union of India' 2001 (3) PLR 860.

5. The following issues were framed by the Reference Court:-

“(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPA

(2) Whether there existed any grape garden at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 163//9/2 (4-8), 10/1 (7-11) belonging to Wakil Chan claimant in L.R. No.60? OPA (Wakil Chand claimant).

(3) If issue No./2 is proved in favour of the claimant to what amount of compensation, the claimant will be entitled to with regard to the plants, and the structure raised on the acquired land therefor? OPA (Wakil Chand claimant)

(4) Whether the applications u/s 18 of the L.A. Act, in L.Rs No. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 are barred by Limitation? OPR

(5) Relief.”

6. Keeping in view the evidence which had been brought on record by as many as 6 witnesses by the land owners and the 4 witnesses on behalf of the State, the Reference Court rejected the argument that the compensation should be assessed in terms of square yards instead of in terms of acres or kanals, on the ground that only 147 kanals 2 marlas constituted the canal irrigated area through Burji Number 70970. T