AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.N. Mittal, J.—This appeal has been filed by M/s. Neelam Finance & Trading Company Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jullundur, dated April 8, 1974, by which its claim for enhancement of compensation was declined.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the Company was the owner of land measuring 3 Kanals 19 marlas in Jullundur which was acquired by the State of Punjab alongwith other land for construction of workshop cum-office for the Punjab Roadways, Jullundur. A notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on September 15, 1970. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated September 29, 1971 gave the compensation to the Company at the rate of Rs. 800/- per marla. It filed an application u/s 18 of the Act to refer the matter for the decision of the Court and therein claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per marla. The claim was contested by the State. On the pleadings of the parties, the Additional District Judge framed the following two issues:--
Whether the reference is within time ?
Whether the amount awarded is inadequate, if so, to what amount are the petitioner entitled ?
He held that the reference was within limitation and that the compensation awarded to the Company was adequate. In view of the finding on issue No. 2, the claim of the Company was dismissed by him. The Company has come up in appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge to this Court.
The only question that arises for determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in compensation or not. In order to decide this matter it will be relevant to refer to the evidence produced by the petitioner Company. P.W. 1 Kuldip Rai is the Sales Assistant in the Improvement Trust, Jullundur. He stated that there is a road in between the land in dispute and the land acquired under the scheme of 81.06 acres. The width of road is 80 ft. In the above referred scheme the plots behind the shopping centre at a distance of 250 yards therefrom were sold on February 16, 1970 and the highest bid was Rs. 1800/- per marla whereas the lowest was Rs. 900/- per marla. In cross-examination, he stated that only one plot was sold at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per marla. Brij Mohan P.W. 2 is a Director of the Company. He stated that he claimed the price of the land at the rate of Rs. 400/- per marla and that was the price prevalent in the market. The land in dispute was facing the shopping centre P.W. 3 K.C. Malhi is the Managing Director of the Company. He made a similar statement as had been made by P.W. 2 Brij Mohan except that he made a claim at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per marla. No oral evidence was produced by the State. The plan, the plot in dispute has been shown in red colour and the shopping centre in the Improvement Trust Scheme in blue colour. There is a road between the land in dispute and the Commercial centre which is known as Garha Road/Nurmahal Road. The land is situated at some distance from the Grand Trunk Road. About 100 Kanals of land has been acquired alongwith the land of the company. The Collector has awarded price to the owners whose land was abutting on the Grand Trunk Road to the width of 40 Karams, at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per marla and to the other owners at the Rate of Rs. 800/- per marla. From the perusal of the plan (Exhibit P. 1), it is clear that the plot is situated on Nurmahal Road facing the Improvement Trust Commercial Centre. The Bus Stand is on the other side of plot and is separated by another Road. Thus there are roads on two of its sides. A residential plot belonging to the Improvement Trust and situated at a distance of 250 yards from the Commercial Centers was sold at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per marla in February, 1970. The situation of the land of the Company is, however, better than the plot sold by the Improvement Trust. It can be used for residential as well as for commercial purposes. Thus the plot has a potential value and cannot be equated with the land of other owners for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per marla has been paid. This cannot be disputed that it is not better situated than the plots of other owners which are abutting on the Grand Trunk Road. The price of the land is to be determined in these circumstances.
The Supreme Court has laid down criteria for determining price of the land in Padma Uppal and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . It was held by their Lordships that the measure of compensation to be awarded to the owners of immoveable property acquired by the State is contained in section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act which is designed to award just and fair compensation for the acquisition. According to this provision, compensation has to be on the basis of the market value prevalent on the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. The said market rate must be determined by reference to the price which a vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from willing purchaser. For ascertaining the market rate the Court can rely upon such transaction which would afford a guide to fix the price. Price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired in or about the time of notification will also supply the data for assessment of compensation. In the present case no other sales except those of the plots belonging to the Improvement Trust have been brought to my notice. It has been well settled by Judicial pronouncements that the prices of small plots of land cannot be taken as a criteria I for fixing price for big plots.
The Government and the Improvement Trust in order to improve the towns have started developing residential plots after acquiring lands, In order to be so some areas are left for roads, parks and for other similar purposes. They have also to spend some amounts for laying sewerage pipes, construction of roads, demarcation of plots etc. In addition to the price of land cost of development is taken into consideration by the purchasers. If undeveloped plots are sold these cannot fetch the same amount of price as a developed plot can. In this case the fact that the collector has paid price of the lard along the Grand Trunk Road at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per marla, also goes a long way for fixing the price of the plot in dispute. After taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances. I fix the price of the land at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per marla.
It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the parties that issue No. 1 had been correctly decided.
For the aforesaid reasons, I partly accept the appeal with proportionate costs and enhance the compensation from Rs. 800/- per marla to Rs. 1500/- per marla. Counsel fee Rs. 250/-.