Punjab State vs Paramit Singh

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

Briefly stated, the facts taken out from the record are that vide notification dated 11.7.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), 9 Kanals 11 marlas of land of the claimantrespondents was acquired by the Punjab Government for constructing kunjar detain in Gurdaspur district. The notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 26.7.1977. It may be mentioned here that this 9 kanals 11 marlas of land which was acquired for the kunjar drain by the State government formed part of a large chunk of land of the claimantrespondents measuring about 343 kanals 2 marlas and though the land was acquired in the year 1977, but the possession was taken by the State on 4.12.1970. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 12.7.1978 in respect of the land acquired with a direction that a supplementary separate award regarding severance allowance, depreciation of land and loss of all means of communication and irrigation etc. will be announced later on. The Collector accordingly passed a supplementary award on 27.11.1979 wherein he came to the conclusion that the unacquired land of the claimants which was rendered barani was 131 kanals 5 marlas (16 acres 3 kanals 5 marlas). He ultimately awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per acre for the Nehri area rendered barani to the claimants and resultantly, a sum of Rs. 16,331/ per acre was awarded to the claimants besides interest at the rate of 6% p.m. from 4.12.1970 till payment.

The State of Punjab has filed an appeal against the said award, while the claimants have filed crossobjections. Both the appeal as well as the cross objection are thus being disposed of by a common judgment.

The learned State counsel has justified the award of the Collector and has contended that as the Land Acquisition Collector had directed the Drainage Department to make permanent arrangement for the passage of the canal water through the disputed land, there was thus, no change in the quality of land. The learned Additional District Judge, according to him, should have not awarded Rs. 1,000/ per acre to the claimantlandowners as compensation for their Nehri area of and being rendered Barani.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimantlandowners has argued that in fact, whole of their left out area, i.e. 333 kanals 11 marlas has been rendered as Barani but the learned Additional District Judge has only awarded compensation for 131 kanals 5 marlas. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge is on a very lower side. He submits that atleast a compensation of Rs. 5,000/ should have been awarded for the land of the claimants which has been rendered Barani due to acquisition of their land for digging out the drain, as according to him, the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs. 13,300/ per acre for the Nehri land and Rs. 8,500/ for the Barani land. He has brought to my notice an unreported judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 206 of 1984 (Gulzar Singh Swami v. Union of India and another) decided on 18.12.1984 to substantiate his argument that the claimants deserve half the price for the Nehri land and in any case the difference in price of the Nehri land and the Barani land determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, which comes to Rs. 4,800/ per acre.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on the file with their assistance. In this appeal, the main question which needs determination is that how much land of the claimant landowners has been rendered Barani due to passing of the Kunjar drain through their land and how much compensation they are entitled to.

A. W.1 Sheesan Singh, Patwari Halqa Kunjar who is an official of the Government, though has been produced by the claimantlandowners, has produced in evidence Ex. A1, the plan of the acquired land prepared by him. He has stated at the trial that in the year 1970, i.e. admittedly when the land was acquired by the Department, almost half of the land was Nehri and the rest was Barani. After the construction of the drain, according to Patwari Sheesan Singh, the entire land of the claimants was rendered Barani.

A.W.2 Dalbir Singh Lambardar of the Village has supported the claim of Paramjit Singh claimant who, when appearing as A.W.3, stated that his entire land had become Barani after the acquisition of the land of the claimants by the State of Punjab since, according to him, the canal water can no longer irrigate their fields.

On the other hand, Makhan Singh Patwari, Halqa Drainage Circle, Amritsar who appeared for the Department as R.W.1, has stated at the trial that the drain has been shown as A to A in the plan. At point B shown in the plan, a bridge has been constructed of cement pipes, BB1 shown red in the map is the Rasta leading to the fields of claimants. There is also a rasta along with the drain towards the land of the claimants. The earlier rasta came into disuse with the digging of the drain and since thereafter, Rasta BB1 which is at a distance of two killas from the earlier Rasta is being used by the claimants. In the crossexamination, he has stated that two pipes have been used for the said bridge with a diameter of 3 ft. and he has admitted in the crossexamination that no syphon exists on the drain close to the land of the claimants. A tractor can pass from the rasta BB1 though he had never seen a tractor passing over the rasta and the rasta, according to him, is two karms wide and just two pipes are kept and some earth wok is done thereupon.

Gurdial Singh, S.D.O. (Drainage), Batala has been produced as R.W. 2 on behalf of the State. He has stated that no one else has come forward for enhancement of compensation because the drain was constructed on the request of the villagers and for their benefit. He has stated that he had seen the entire record pertaining to the land in connection with the construction of drain. No one made any appliction to the Drainage Department for the construction of a culvert or a bridge on the drain. The Department will be prepared to construct a culvert for the convenience of the claimants, if they so wanted. No evidence to construct a culvert etc. is shown to have been made till today.

After going through the statement of the witnesses produced by both the parties and appreciating the record, there is no manner of doubt that due to the passing of the drain for which the land of the claimants was acquired, damage was certainly been done to the land of the claimants. Though it is proved that through the bridge on the eastern side, the claimants can have approach to their disputed land, but so far as the rasta BBI is concerned, that could at best be used by the pedestrians to take the animals through it. A tractor could not be taken from such a temporary type of struture with earth put just on two pipes. In any case, the fact which remains to be determined is that as to how much area of the claimants has been rendered Barani due to the nonavailability of canal water to their land after the above said acquisition. The learned Additional District Judge, after taking into account the various factors on the record, has reached a conclusion that 131 kanasl 5 marlas of the land of the claimants was rendered barani, I do not find any fault with the judgment of the leanred Additional District Judge on this point. However, I feel that the compension of Rs. 1,000/ per acre for the land rendered Barani by the said acquisition is on a lower side particularly, in view of the judgment in Gulzar Singh Swani's case (supra) wherein Rs. 16,500/ was fixed as market value of the canal irrigated land but Rs. 8,250/ per acre was awarded for the land which was rendered Barani due to the acquisition.

After considering all the aspects of the case, I think it will be just and proper to enhance the compensation for the Nehri area rendered Barani from Rs. 1,000/ per acre to Rs. 4,000/ per acre.

Resultantly, the appeal of the State is dismissed.