Hardev Singh vs Punjab State

N.C. Jain, J

This judgment of mine will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 105, 106 and 167 of 1982, Civil Misc. No. 2956/C.1 of 1986 filed in RFA No 105 of 1982 and Civil Misc No. 2959/C.I. of 1986 filed in RFA No. 106 of 199 3, all filed by the appellantslandowners. RFA. No. 150 to 153 of 1982 filed by the State of Punjab as also CrossObjection No. 137/C.I. of 1982 and Civil Misc No. 114/C.I. of 1982, both filed in RFA No. 152 of 1982 as all of them arise out of a common award of the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, dated 6th October, 1981, by notification dated 21st February, 1975 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act''), land measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas comprised in khasra Nos 171/26, 474min, 808min, 498min, 497min, 495, 484/1521/15 situated in Bassi Pathanan was acquired by the State of Punjab for setting up the Industrial Training Institute at Bassi Pathanan. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/ per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act the learned Additional District Judge. evaluated the said land at, the rate of Rs. 80,000/ per acre.

Before the value of the land is determined, it is necessary to have a look at the potentialities of the land in dispute. The land is situated on the corners of two roads and is opposite to the residential building known as `Halim Manzil''. It is at a stone''s throw from the Courts and the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Bus stand and. certain industrial units area situated at a short distance from the acquired land. Bassi Pathanan is a Sub Divisional Headquarter. The location and the potentialities of the acquired land have been discussed in the award of the learned Additional District Judge and the same have not been disputed before me.

Mr. Gurbachan Singh the learned counsel for the landowners has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in rejecting the two sale deeds Exhibits A 2 and X4. He further argued that the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that Exhibit A2 relates 16 a sale transaction pertaining to the year 1972 and this land had a special value for Nirankari Bhawan is no good a reasoning for discarding Exhibit A2. The learned counsel has also argued that Exhibit A4 could not be discarded on the ground that Dr. Narinder Singh RW3 purchased the land as he was in need of it. There is a considerable force in the arguments of the learned counsel. Nothing has been brought on the record of the case to conclude that the land forming the subject matter of Exhibit A2 had any special value for setting up Nirankari Bhawan Similarly, the sale transaction Exhibit A4 cannot be discarded because the purchaser was badly in need of the plot. It is only when a person needs a particular piece of land that he goes in for transaction of a particular property. The State Government also acquires the land only when it is needed for some public purpose. Dr.Narinder Singh was not crossexamined on the point that he paid more price because he was badly in need of the plot. Both these sale transactions were executed and registered prior to the issuance of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. Exhibit A2,was registered on 19th January, 1972 whereas Exhibit A4 was registered on 24th December, 1974. The land forming part of these two transactions of sale also measured more than 2 kanals each and is situated very near to the acquired land. Therefore, it cannot be said that area sold by these two sale deeds was such a small one that the aforesaid two transactions of sale cannot be held to be comparable sales visavis the acquired land which is measuring 8 kanals 8 marlas only. After examining the entire evidence on the record of the case, I am of the view that the two transactions of sales aforesaid are comparable sales and, therefore, they should be considered for determining the market value of the acquired land. The price per acre of the land relating to Exhibit A2 is Rs. 97,000/ whereas the price of land mentioned in Exhibit A4 per acre is Rs. 86,000/: The average, therefore, of market value determined in the aforesaid two transactions of sale comes to Rs. 9 1,500/ per acre.

Having determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 91,500/ per acre in the aforementioned paragraph, another point remains to be settled in this case. It has been noticed in the award under challenge and which is not disputed before me that, the possession of the acquired land was taken from the claimants on 5.2.1963, i.e. much before the issuance of the notification in the year 1975. On the basis of these admitted facts an interesting question arises whether the landowners/claimants would be entitled to the grant of some relief on account of an action of #he State Government, which can only be initiated after issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. In my view the claimants will have to be granted equitable compensation in the shape of interest at the rate of 12 per cent perannum from the date of taking over possession till the date of actual payment on that amount of compensation which is determined by this Court. It has already been determined by me that the claimants lands deserved to be evaluated at Rs. 91,500/ per acre. The equitable compensation would be payable on the amount so determined by this Court. The equitable compensation to be paid will be in addition to the compensation, solarium and interest at the statutory rates which would also be paid to the claimants under law. Such a course was adopted by a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh Court in Nokhia and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors., AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 98.

Faced with this situation, the counsel for the State has argued that in Nokhia''s case (supra) the Himachal High Court was issuing necessary directions "In, writ jurisdiction the learned counsel is right in this respect. A bare persual of the judgment makes it clear that the writ was registered by the Himachal High Court on the basis of a, letter addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. If the High Court can issue directions for payment of interest for a wrongful act committed by the State Government surely this Court, while deciding Regular First Appeal can make on observation that the claimants are entitled to compensation for the wrongful deprivation of their property. After determining the rights of the claimants to get 12 per cent interest, this Court can make an observation that the claimants are entitled to the grant of equitable compensation. I have got no doubt in my mind that the Land Acquisition Collector would grant equitable compensation as has been observed above, failing which the claimants can approach this Court for appropriate relief.

In the light of the observations made above, the appeals and the crossobjections filed by the claimants are allowed determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 91,500/ per acre. The claimants would have proportionate costs of the appeals and cross objections. They are further held entitled to the grant on statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1 A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The appeals preferred by the State of Punjab are dismissed with no order as to costs Civil Petitions also stand disposeof.

Appeal accepted