Buta Singh and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

M.S. Liberhan, J.—By this order, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 224, 225, 242, 243, 424, 426 to 444, 460 to 476 and 1838, all of 1989 and 1224 to 1242, 1262 to 1264, 1291, 1316, 1348, 1349, 1370, 1431 to 1448, all of 1988 as well.

The claimants as well as the Union of India have preferred appeals against the decision of learned Single Judge, dated August 29. 1988. The kerned Single Judge relying on Zora Singh v. Union of India at d another 1987 L. A. C. C. 541. and accepting it to be relating to similar land has determined the market value of the land in the following manner;

(i) Land falling within a depth of 500 metres on either side of the Bhatinda Barnala Road ....Rs. 70,000/- per acre. (ii) Land not falling within the above block (a) Chahi/Nehri ...Rs. 40,000/- per acre. (b) Barani ...Rs. 30,000/- per acre, (c) Banjar Qadim ...Rs. 18.000/-per acre.

Benefit of Sections 24(I A, 23(2) and 28 of the Act as these stand after their amendment were also granted.

The learned counsel for the parties agree that so far as the market value of the land with respect to Chahi, Nehri. Barani and Banjar Qudim type of land is concerned, same is coveted by a decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1251 of 1 1987 (Zora Singh v. Union of India and Anr. 1987 L. A. C. C. 541.-decided on January 30, 1989), wherein the judgment of learned Single Beach in Zora Singh''s case (supra) was modified and market value of the land was found to be as under:-

(i) For the land within the abadi and abutting the National Highway on either side upto the depth of 500 metres ...@ Rs. 90,000/- per acre. (ii) For Chahi/Nehri, or Chahi, Nehri land ...@ Rs. 50,000/- per acre. (iii) For Barani land ...@ Rs. 38,000/ per acre. (iv) For Banjar Kadim or Gair Mumkin land ...@ Rs. 30,000/ per acre.

Otherwise also, on merits nothing has been pointed out worth noticing either by the counsel for the clamaimants or for the respondent-Union of India to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Single Judge with respect to similarity of the land under consideration in Zora Singh''s c use (supra) and the land under dispute. No error in assessing the market value in terms of Division Bench judgment in case of Zora Singh had been pointed out. We do not find anything which can be substantially or gainfully added to it.

The learned counsel for the claimants has sanguinely challenged the observations made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the land situated at Bhatinda -Barnala Road has a different market value than the one situated on the road leading to Village Bibiwala.

It is contended that the observations of the learned Single Judge reproduced from the judgment of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the observations are being made with respect to the potentiality and not the market value. The observation that there is no Railway Station. Maodi, College or Factory in that village cannot be sustained. There is no gainsaying that the land in the revenue estates of Villages Mebua, Bhucho Kalan and Bhucho Khard was acquired by the same Notification and for the same purpose o establishing a Cantonment. It was not disputed at the bar that the land is situated adjacent to the town of Bhatinda. Even a site plan was shown to us in Court which the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute wherein it has been shown that the land situated at Che Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road is within the vicinity of the Bhatinda Municipal Town and is within two Kilometres from the Municipal limits of Bhatinda. It can very well be said that the importance of the National Highway can be conveniently o termed to have been offset because of the closeness of the lard to be municipal limits of Bhatinda. We fined no ground to treat the land having opining on a metalled, road i. e. Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road'' differently from the one having opening at Bhalinda-Barnala Road. Blocks in both the cases can be treated as similarly situated with almost similar potentialities. Suburban properties around a municipal town prima facie have the same potentiality unless otherwise shown. Nothing has been polated out that the town is developing mere on the National Highway side than on the vicinity of the Bibiwala Road. We are of the considered view that land falling within a depth of, 500 metres of either side on the Bhatinda'' Bibiwala Road cannot be treated differently than the one on the Bhatinda-Barnala Road, The importance of being on that important road offsets itself against the importance of being in the vicinety of the Beatinda town. The lands having been acquired for the same object and purpose and having the same importance cannot be treated differently

Consquently we venture to make the modification in the order of the learned Single Judge, to the effect that the land falling within a depth of 500 metres on either side of Bhatinda-Bibiwaia Road shall also be assessed at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre as its market value and the rest of the land shall be assessed in terms of Zora Singh''s case (supra) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1251 of 1987, decided on January 30, l989, i e for

(i) Chahi/Nehri land .. @ Rs. 50,000/ per acre. (ii) Barani land .. @ Rs. 38,000/- per acre. (iii) Banjar Qadim land .. @ rs. 30.000/- per acre;

The claimants would also, of course, be entitled to the benefits of Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act as these stand after their a (sic) vide Act No. 68 of (sic). The appellants shall also have the proportion the costs of their appeals. The. judgment of the learned Single. Judge is modified to the extent stated above

The rest of the findings are affirmed as we find no force in the appeal on these findings. Accordingly, the claimants'' appeals are disposed of in terms of the above observations,

In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeals preferred by the Union of India. The same are dismissed with costs.

At the same time, the claimants shall be entitled to the proportionate costs to the extent their appeals have been accepted.

Some of the claimants have made applications, for making up the deficiency in court fee, they are allowed to make up the deficiency in court-fee within two months, if not already made. In case they do not make up the deficiency in Court-fee, their claim would be taken to have been decreed only to the extent the court-fee has already been paid.