The State of Punjab vs Inder Singh

P.C. Pandit and H.R. Sodhi, JJ.—Land measuring 18.807 acres in Sultanpur and 1.153 acres in Suba Akbarpur in District Ambala was acquired by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for the extension of 132/220 KV. Grid Sub Station at Dhulkot (Ambala). Notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called the Act, were issued on 19/23rd April, 1962, and 10th of August, 1962, respectively. In the acquired land in Sultanpur, Kehar Singh, Kundan Lal and Inder Singh owned 24 Bighas, 10 Biswas, 34 Bighas and 84 Bighas, respectively. It was conceded that the land of all these claimants was Barani. On 22nd of January, 1933, the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award whereby he assessed the Barani land at Rs. 2,662/- per acre, which would come to about Rs. 560/- per Bigha. As regards the Chahi land, he fixed the value at Rs. 3,000/- per acre which came to about Rs. 637/- per Bigha.

As the above mentioned three landowners were not satisfied with the award, they made applications to the Collector u/s 18 of the Act requiring that the matter be referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. According to Kehar Singh and Kundan Lal, the price of the acquired land was under no circumstances less than Rs. 1,000/- per Bigha, whereas Inder Singh claimed Rs. 1,200/- per Bigha. All three of them also made a grievance about the fact that no severance allowance was awarded as compensation to them by the Land Acquisition Collector. Since all the claims had arisen out of the same award of the Collector and also because the lands of the claimants were situate in the same village, these three claims were consolidated and with the consent of the parties, the evidence was recorded in one case, namely, of Kehar Singh. All these claims were decided together by the learned Additional District Judge by one order dated 6th of May, 1964. He fixed the price of the land at Rs. 1,000/- per Bigha. Regarding the severance of the land of the claimants, his finding was that none of them had brought on record any satisfactory evidence to prove their case on that point. Against this decision, three appeals (Regular First Appeal Nos. 289 to 291 of 1964) were filed by the State of Punjab against the above mentioned three claimants. This order will dispose of all the three connected appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector was correct and the learned Additional District Judge was in error in fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 1,000/- per Bigha. The only question to be determined in this case, therefore, is as to what was the market price of the land acquired.

It is undisputed that the relevant date for assessing the said price of the land is the date on which section 4 notification was issued, that is, 23rd of April, 1962. Evidence, both oral and documentary, had been produced by the claimants in support of their case. A number of mutations evidencing the sales of lands in Sultanpur had been placed on the record. On 30th of August, 1950, 1 Bigha 18 Biswas of Barani land was sold for Rs. 7,600/- vide Exhibit A. 18. On 3rd of August, 1952, 1 Bigha 11 Biswas of Land (Banjar Qadim) was sold for Rs. 6,200/- vide Exhibit A. 11 and 1 Bigha (Banjar Qadim) for Rs. 4,000/- vide Exhibit A. 17. On 25th of December, 1957, there was a sale transaction regarding 4 Bighas for Rs. 2,000/- vide Exhibit A 16. On 27th of August, 1958, 11 Bighas were sold for Rs. 7,000/- vide Exhibit A. 15. On 15th of September, 1958, land measuring 3 Bighas 16 Biswas was sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,400/- vide Exhibit A 13. It might be mentioned that a mutation regarding the sale of 1 Bigha 14 Biswas for Rs. 10,000/- on 29th of July, 1969, vide Exhibit A. 14, was also produced. From the said mutation, it appeared that alongwith 1 Bigha 14 Biswas, some other land had also been sold by the vendor for the sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. That being so, this transaction would not be taken into consideration for assessing the market value of the land acquired. On 29th of September, 1962, 100 sq. yards were sold for Rs. 150/- vide Exhibit A. 1. On 26th of April, 1963, land measuring 2 Bighas was sold for Rs. 4,000/- vide Exhibit A. 10.

From the sale transactions noted above, it would be seen that the average sale price from 1950 to 1952 came to Rs. 4000/- per Bigha and from 1952 to 1957, it appeared that there were no sales. From 1957 to 1958, the average sale price was about Rs. 512/- per Bigha. In September, 1952, the price was about Rs. 1562/- and in April. 1963, Rs. 2000/- per Bigha. The reason why the average price fell in 1957/1958 had been explained by the claimants by producing the vendees.

The land sold was in their possession and they were not prepared to vacate it, with the result that the vendors had to sell it to them only. Inder Singh A. W. 7 stated that at the time of the purchase, the land fold was already in his possession since 1947 and he was not prepared to give up his possession over the said Land despite several attempts made by the vendor in that behalf. According to him, there were many customers for purchasing the land at a higher value only if he vacated it. Similarly, Balwant Ram A. W. 8 deposed that he was not prepared to give up possession of the land sold which was already in his possession. The vendor had, therefore, to sell it in his favour at a cheap rite.

It is true that for determining the market value of the acquired land, one had to see the sale transactions in respect of similar lands in the locality within a reasonable time of the section 4 notification. Generally, the valuation of the acquired land is fixed on the basis of sales at or about the time of notification u/s 4. The date of sale for comparison should ordinarily be close to the date of the section 4 notification. However, bona fide transactions subsequent to the notification can also sometimes be taken into consideration. They are not always altogether to be ignored.

As held by the Supreme Court in The The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty, , the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act and the method of valuation may be the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages.

If we take into consideration all the sale transactions from 1953 to 1958, the average price would come to about Rs. 1225/- per Bigha. If, however, the sale transaction of April, 1963 is also taken note of, the average would work out at about Rs. 1280/- per Bigha.

9 There are also on the record Aks Shijra, Exhibit R. 1, and a plan, Exhibit A. 12, put in by the claimants. These two documents show the location of the land acquired and the lands which are the subject-matter of the various alienations. The acquired land is adjacent to the existing power station. The land acquired in Suba Akbarpur is situate on one side of the main load going from Ambala Cantonment to Kalka and on the other side is the land acquired in Sultanpur. One year after the acquisition, 2 Bighas of land was purchased by Gurmukh Singh A W. 5 for Rs. 4000/- vide Exhibit A. 10. That land adjoined the boundaries of the Power House. This transaction also gives some indication regarding the market value of the land in question.

The claimants have also produced oral evidence to prove their case. A. W. 1 Ramu purchased 100 sq. yards of land for Rs. 150/- on 29th of September, 1962, for building a house, vide Exhibit A. I. Ac-cording to him. the land acquired was at a distance of only 500 yards from the land purchased by him. It was at a distance of 50 yards from the road leading to Jarout and 200 yards from the road going to Kalka. It adjoined the site of the Power House, the building of which was at a distance of about 300 yards from there. A. W. 3 Budh Ram stated that he had sold 1 Bigha of land for Rs. 4000/, This was on 3rd of August, 1952, vide Exhibit A. 17. The land acquired was at a distance of 50 yards from the said land. According to him, the power House was situated at a distance of about 30 paces from the land in dispute. Inder son of Bhagwana. A. W. 6, stated that he had sold 1 Bigha 11 Biswas of land for Rs. 3200/- on 3rd of August, 1962, vide Exhibit A. 11. The land acquired, according to him, was at a very short distance from the land sold by him. A. W. 8 Balwant Ram had purchased 4 Bighas of land for Rs. 2000/- on 25th of December, 1957, vide Exhibit A. 16. This land was at a distance of about 1 furlongs from the Power House. Inder claimant had appeared as A. W. 10. According to him, the land in dispute adjoined the Kalka-Ambala road, and Ambala-Jarout road passed at a distance of 500 feet from that land. It adjoined the Power House at Dhulkot. Potteries (Fatma) were at a distance of 2/3 furlongs from his land. Kehar Singh claimant also had appeared as A. W. 11. According to him, his land also adjoined the Power House at Dhulkot. Residential houses and plots of Partap Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Asa Ram were near his land. Fatma Potteries were at a distance of 2 or 3 furlongs from his land.

The Government produced only one witness, namely, Kishori Lal, Kanungo, Land Acquisition, as R.W. 1, He stated that only a road was in between the lands of Suba Akbarpur under acquisition and the existing electricity sub-station. The land in dispute, according to him, adjoined the boundaries of the existing power sub-station.

From the oral evidence, it will be apparent that the land acquired is on one side of the main road which goes from Ambala Cantonment to Kalka. On the left side of the road is the land of Mrs. Chhachhi in Suba Akbarpur, which had also been acquired for this very purpose. The land in dispute adjoins the existing Power Station at Dhulkot. The lands, which were the subject matter of previous alienations, were also not very far from the land in question. Some of the sale transactions had been effected for building houses. It appears that it is an area which was fast developing into urban immovable property. The development has been going on from 1950 onwards. It has, therefore, its potential value as well. It is undisputed that the land was not to be valued merely by reference to the uses to which it was being put at the time at which its value had to be determined, but also by reference to its potentialities, that is, by reference to the uses to which it was reasonably capable of being put in future (see in this connection AIR 1939 98 (Privy Council)

It is significant to mention that Mrs. Chhachhi had been awarded compensation @ Rs. 5000/- per Bigha for her land in Suba Akbarpur, which had been acquired by the, same notification. It was so conceded by the counsel for the parties. But the counsel appearing for the State submitted that an appeal filed by them against that award was pending in this Court. Mrs. Chhachhi''s land, as I have already mentioned above, was on the other side of the road going from Ambala Cantonment of Kalka. According to Puran Chand, Patwari, Revenue Circle, Suba Akbarpur, A. W. 2, the quality of the land of Mrs. Chhachhi and the land in dispute was the same.

Taking into consideration the evidence produced in the case, both oral and documentary, I find that no case his been made out for awarding less than Rs. 1,000/- per Bigha as compensation to the claimants. The result is that these appeals fails and are dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, however, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.