AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr. No.,Village Name,"Area
A-K-M","Market value fixed
the LAC (Award
dated 18.08.2006)",,,,
1.,Panjkoha,10-2-19,Rs.6 lakhs per acre,,,,
2.,Bhattian,0-2-6,Rs.6 lakhs per acre,,,,
3.,Panaichan,24-5-7,Rs.6 lakhs per acre,,,,
4.,Khant,29-5-4,Rs.8 lakhs per acre,,,,
5.,Sanghol,39-3-18,Rs.8 lakhs per acre,,,,
Total,,104-3-14,,,,,
Sr.
No.","Sale deed
dated",Ex.,Area,"Sale
consideration",Rate per acre,Village,
1.,09.08.2004,P7,1K 5 M,"Rs.4,50,000/-","Rs.28,80,000/-",Sanghol,
2,02.11.2004,P8,1K 5 M,"Rs.4,50,000/-","Rs.28,80,000/-",Sanghol,
3.,08.01.2005,P9,0K 5 M,"Rs.90,000/-","Rs.28,80,000/-",Sanghol,
4.,02.01.2006,P10,0K12M,"Rs.1,80,000/-","Rs.24,00,000/-",Khant,
5.,23.02.2006,P11,2K 1 M,"Rs.5,40,000/-","Rs.21,09,317/-",Sanghol,
6.,22.03.2006,P12,15K13M,"Rs.29,34,375/-","Rs.1,50,00,000/-",Sanghol,
7.,23.06.2006,P13,3 Acres,"Rs.1,80,00,000/-","Rs.60,00,000/-",Sanghol,
8.,17.10.2006,P14,24B3½B,"Rs.1,51,09,375/-","Rs.30,00,000/-","Polo
Majra",
circumstances, the Reference Court had noticed that the market value was much below than what had been awarded by the LAC, but keeping in",,,,,,,
view the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, it could not decrease the amount as such and, thus, there is no case made out for enhancement in any",,,,,,,
manner.,,,,,,,
The only three issues which, thus, arise for consideration are:",,,,,,,
(i) Whether uniform market value to be awarded or not, since the land has been acquired for the same purpose;",,,,,,,
(ii) The percentage of severance charge to be granted and,,,,,,,
(iii) Whether the Reference Court could grant additional 30% on the point of solatium.,,,,,,,
Reliance had rightly been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in 'Ali Mohammad Beigh and others VS. State of J&K' 2017 (4),,,,,,,
SCC 717, wherein land has been acquired for construction and development of housing colony for the resettlement of the dislocated families of the",,,,,,,
Dal Dwellers. The land had been acquired from three different villages and the landowners were aggrieved against the different rates of the,,,,,,,
compensation awarded and the fact that the villages were situated adjacent to each other and shared a common boundary, the argument was",,,,,,,
accepted. The distance between two villages being not much and keeping in view the site plan, the Apex Court had granted the same amount of",,,,,,,
compensation @ Rs. 4 lakhs per kanal. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Union of India v. Harinder Pal,,,,,,,
Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, which was for the acquisition in similar circumstances for the purpose of a Cantonment and the land belonged",,,,,,,
to various villages. This Court had set aside the belting system and granted uniform compensation, which was upheld by the Apex Court by noticing",,,,,,,
that the High Court had taken a pragmatic view as such to grant the uniform rate of compensation.,,,,,,,
Counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the observations of the Reference Court that the land as such was falling 10 to 11 Kms away from,,,,,,,
the highway as such and, therefore, the market value as such has been granted of a lesser rate for the land of three villages. The said argument is",,,,,,,
liable to be rejected.,,,,,,,
More so site plan downloaded from the Google by the Railways themselves has been taken on record as Mark-A. A perusal of the same would go,,,,,,,
on to show that railway line as such was running parallel to the Chandigarh Ludhiana Highway, but never at a close distance. The closest distance",,,,,,,
which it had came to the highway was 730 meters from village Khant. Panjkoha falls on the other side of the railway line on the similar side and, thus,",,,,,,,
was contiguous and contributing land to the railways. Merely because the abadi of the village as such may be far away from the highway, but the land",,,,,,,
which had been acquired was adjoining the land of village Khant. Therefore, value of said land as such had to be granted and the same amount of",,,,,,,
compensation, as the land wassituated closer to the road and would have the same market value.",,,,,,,
Similarly, abadi of village Sanghol as such is below the highway and the railway line is further below the abadi area and away from the highway.",,,,,,,
The land of Sanghol on top of the abadi is closer to the highway would thus command a higher premium. But the land below the abadi area and further,,,,,,,
from the Highway also has been given the benefit of Rs. 8 lakhs also, though it was at a further distance from the highway in comparison to what the",,,,,,,
land of village Panjkoha would be. The site plan Mark-A, thus, would go on to show that the railway line is cutting through the agricultural land of the",,,,,,,
five villages in question and the land is at a reasonable distance from the highway. Therefore, the market value should have been uniform, in the facts",,,,,,,
and circumstances. Rather the evidence is in favour of the landowners as such, since it is their specific case throughout that the quality of the land is",,,,,,,
the same.,,,,,,,
Reference can be made to the statement of Paramjit Singh, Xen Construction II, who appeared as RW-1 in the case of Major Singh (supra). In his",,,,,,,
cross-examination he admitted that the acquired land of village Panaichan was far away from main Chandigarh-Ludhiana road. It was stated that the,,,,,,,
production of the land was also less and area was also low lying at some place and the distance of village Panaichan was 1 km from Chandigarh-,,,,,,,
Ludhiana road. The acquired land of village Khant was also stated to be at a distance of 1 Km from Chandigarh-Ludhiana road. The acquired land of,,,,,,,
village Sanghol was at a distance of 1 ½ Km from Chandigarh-Road and the acquired land of village Panjkoha was at a distance of 1 Km, whereas",,,,,,,
village Bhatian was at a distance of 1 ½ Km.,,,,,,,
Apparently, it has come on record the land was situated adjoining and, thus, would command the uniform rate which has not been granted by the",,,,,,,
Reference Court and the evidence as such had been ignored. An explanation was sought to be given in cross-examination for the inter se difference,,,,,,,
between the nature of the land of the above villages, which had been put to the witness. The witness stated that the acquired land of village Panaichan",,,,,,,
was far away from the main Chandigarh-Ludhiana road and the production of the land was also less and the area was also low lying at some place.,,,,,,,
However, he had not brought any document to show that the land was low lying at some places. He stated to have documentary evidence showing the",,,,,,,
levelling of low lying area and could produce it, if so desired, but the same was not done. Similarly, he did not have the possession of any documentary",,,,,,,
evidence to prove that the fertility of the land of village Panaichan was inferior to the land of other villages. Thus, it is apparent that the landowners",,,,,,,
are justified in claiming of a uniform compensation.,,,,,,,
The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mangat (dead) by L.Rs, 2001 (1) PLJ 461, disapproved of granting the uniform compensation, if",,,,,,,
the land is abutting highway. In the said case, the acquisition was for setting up of National Security Guard Camp at Manesar, Gurgaon and there was",,,,,,,
a frontage on the highway and it was, accordingly, held that the land abutting the National Highway would not be granted the same value.",,,,,,,
In the present case, the land does not abut the highway and, therefore, the basic principle of uniform rate has to be followed, which was also",,,,,,,
granted in the case of 'Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Vs. Raghubir Singh and others' 2010 (11) SCC 581. The relevant observations of",,,,,,,
the said case read as under:-,,,,,,,
“6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to",,,,,,,
be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a",,,,,,,
City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances.",,,,,,,
We may illustrate :,,,,,,,
(A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a",,,,,,,
single uniform rate.,,,,,,,
(B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal",,,,,,,
procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate.",,,,,,,
(C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end",,,,,,,
being two to three kilometres away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther",,,,,,,
away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given",,,,,,,
the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing",,,,,,,
rates from the highest to the lowest.,,,,,,,
(D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city",,,,,,,
limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point",,,,,,,
to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference.",,,,,,,
Illustration-D as such would be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the land acquired was far away from any town or",,,,,,,
city limits and without any special main road access and it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate.",,,,,,,
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the three villages, namely, Panjkoha, Bhattia and Panaichan would be entitled for higher market value",,,,,,,
of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre.,,,,,,,
Similarly, the issue of severance as such has to be addressed. The grouse of the appellants on account of severance @ 10% granted is also",,,,,,,
justified. The principle of severance as such is granted on the basis of Clause-3 of Section 23 of the Act, which is a factor to be taken into",,,,,,,
consideration, on account of the damage suffered by the person on account of the reason of severing such land from his other land by the Collector at",,,,,,,
the time of taking possession of the land. Section 23 (1), 23 (1A) and 23 (2) read as under:-",,,,,,,
“23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation. - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired,,,,,,,
under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section",,,,,,,
4, sub-section (1)]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the",,,,,,,
land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the",,,,,,,
Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person",,,,,,,
interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or",,,,,,,
immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is",,,,,,,
compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any)",,,,,,,
bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the,,,,,,,
Collector's taking possession of the land 23 (IA) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an",,,,,,,
amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication,,,,,,,
of the notification under section 4, sub-section (I) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of",,,,,,,
the land whichever is earlier. Explanation: In computing the period referred io in this sub-section. any period or periods during which the proceedings,,,,,,,
for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.,,,,,,,
23 (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per cent on such market-",,,,,,,
value. in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.â€,,,,,,,
In the land reference of Tej Kaur (supra), RW-1 Paramjit Singh, in his affidavit on behalf of the department sought to cover up the amount of",,,,,,,
compensation which was to be awarded for severance by deposing that sufficient arrangements had existed for the landowners for their ingress and,,,,,,,
egress to the land on the other side of the railway track. The number of Road Under Bridges on Pucca road and also on Kacha path had also built at,,,,,,,
point A to B. Similarly, there were RCC Box bridges meant for its use as passage for crossing to one side to the other side of the railway track.",,,,,,,
Similarly, it was justified that there was adequate provisions made for the movement of agriculture appliances and implements i.e. Tractor, Trolloy,",,,,,,,
Harrow etc. by providing Kacha path on both sides of the railway track. In cross-examination, it has come forth that there was considerable distance",,,,,,,
between under passes as such and land which was falling on the other side of the track.,,,,,,,
This Court in 'Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab through Collector Land Acquisition Drainage Circle Patiala, 1987 RRR 495, 'State of Punjab Vs.",,,,,,,
Gopal Singh', 2002 (2) PLR 843, 'Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Land Acquisition Collector, 2008 (2) PLR 8763, State of Haryana Vs. Kartar Singh",,,,,,,
2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 443 and 'Smt. Maya Vs. State of Haryana', 2012 (4) PR 747 has consistently time and again granted 50% severance. In the",,,,,,,
case of Tehal Singh (supra) the land was acquired for the purpose of SYL Canal. The same was on the basis that the land which falls across and,,,,,,,
which is a small piece of land necessarily as such would be difficult to cultivate and landowners would not be able to get sufficient income from the,,,,,,,
same. The relevant observations read as under:-,,,,,,,
“10. The compensation for severance thus awarded does not appear to be based on sound reasoning. The loss which has been caused by,,,,,,,
severance includes loss on account of uneconomic agricultural holding, which has been left after acquisition, bifurcation of a big economical holding",,,,,,,
into two small holdings which may not be any longer viable for profitable cultivation, loss of access to the land where the canal intervenes between the",,,,,,,
village and the land or availability of a bridge over the canal in the course of time which may be quite distant from the village as also the land on the,,,,,,,
other side of the canal, loss of irrigation facilities in case the well or the canal watercourse which is the source of irrigation is located on the other side",,,,,,,
of the S.Y.L. Canal. It is well known that agricultural based habitations i.e. the villages, are located and in the course of time get established at a place",,,,,,,
where access to the agricultural land is easy; the agriculturists barter or sell small uneconomical holdings which are purchased by the adjoining,,,,,,,
landowners though the price fetched is comparatively less than its market value. Where land is canal irrigated the authorities of the Irrigation,,,,,,,
Department re-frame schemes for the watercourse to command the area for irrigation purposes taking due account of the obstruction caused by the,,,,,,,
construction for which the land has been acquired. Land measuring more than two acres normally makes a viable agricultural holding in the tehsil of,,,,,,,
Rajpura where the mode of cultivation and harvesting is by and large conventional and is yet to be mechanized.â€,,,,,,,
In the present case, it is not a case of water channel, but is a case of acquisition for the purpose of railway line. Restricted access, thus, is",,,,,,,
provided at some distance by the railways themselves, which has come on record in the statement of the official witness. The landowners would face",,,,,,,
considerable difficulties in crossing the railway line as such and transporting agricultural implements across the railway line to the balance land which,,,,,,,
is on the other side. In such circumstances, the percentage of severance is liable to be enhanced. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court the",,,,,,,
adequate percentage as such which would be sufficient to compensate the landowners would be to the tune of 30% on account of the severance of,,,,,,,
the land, only due to the acquisition for the purpose of railway line.",,,,,,,
The amount of additional 30% solatium granted by the Reference Court is apparently an error on the face of the record and is liable to be set,,,,,,,
aside. The Reference Court did not examine the award of the LAC dated 18.08.2006, wherein the benefits of solatium were already granted which",,,,,,,
statutory in nature to the extent of 30%. The relevant part of the award of the LAC, whereby the market value was fixed @ Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 8",,,,,,,
lakhs per acre + 30% solatium alongwith other benefits under under Section 23 (1A), was in the LAC Award and paid also is reproduced as under:-",,,,,,,
“The above mentioned rates proposed vide letter no:712/peshi, dated 30.12.05 of this office to Village Sanghol and Khant i.e. Rs 8,00,000/- per",,,,,,,
acre and to Village Bhatiyan, Panjkoha and Panaichan i.e. Rs 6,00,000/- per acre and sent to the Secretary, Public Works Department, B & R,",,,,,,,
Punjab, Chandigarh for approval, which were approved vide Memo no:7/26/05-1IS3/817 dated 15-02-06. On the basis of these rates the compensation",,,,,,,
of whole Chahi cultivable land comes as under:-,,,,,,,
Sr.
No.","Name of
the
village","Hadbast
No.","Area
A K M",Amount,30% solatium,"interest 12%
from dated
19.09.05",Total amount
1.,Panjkoha,267,10-2-19,"Rs.62,21,250/-","Rs.18,66,375","Rs.6,46,328/-","Rs.87,33,953/-
2.,Sanghol,310,35-3-19,"Rs.2,83,95,000/-","RS.85,18,500/-","Rs.29,49,968/-","Rs.3,98,63,468/-
3.,Bhattian,270,0-2-6,"Rs.1,72,500/-","Rs.51,750-","Rs.17,921/-","Rs.2,42,171/-
4.,Khant,271,29-5-4,"Rs.2,37,20,000/-","Rs.71,16,000-","Rs.24,64,275/-","Rs.3,33,00,275/-
5.,Panaichan,309,24-5-7,"Rs.1,48,01,250/-","Rs.44,40,375-","Rs.15,37,708/-","Rs.2,07,79,334/-
Total,,-,-,"Rs.7,33,10,000/-","Rs.2,19,93,000/-","Rs.76,16,200/-","Rs.10,29,19,200/-
(iii) Appeals of the railways are allowed to the extent that 30% additional amount on account of the solatium, which has been granted is set aside. It is",,,,,,,
clarified that the solatium will be @ 30% only as per the statutory provisions of Section 23 (2) of the Act.,,,,,,,
Resultantly, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. All the pending civil miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.",,,,,,,