Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors

dated 20th of May, 1983 under Section 4 of the Land 3 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Act") for the public purpose of setting up of a

Government Engineering College. The Land

Acquisition Collector, by an award dated 7th of March,

1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land

at the rate of Rs. 53,560/- per acre in respect of the

Chahi land, Barani land at the rate of Rs. 28,500/- per acre

and Banjar kadim at the rate of Rs. 14,250/- per acre. The

appellants, who are the land owners/claimants, were dissatisfied

with the award and filed reference cases under Section 18 of the

Act. The Reference Court determined the market value of the

acquired land up to a depth of 100 karams situated on the G.T.

Road at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre and the market value of

the remaining land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per

acre. With this determination, the Reference Court also held that

the land owners/claimants were also entitled to other statutory

benefits as admissible to them in law.

4

Feeling aggrieved by this determination of the Reference

Court made under Section 18 of the Act, appeals were filed before

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which, by the impugned

Judgment, were allowed in part, holding that the market value of

the entire acquired land must be assessed at the rate of Rs.

1,60,000/- per acre inter alia on a finding that when the acquired

land was having such potential, then adopting of Belting System

and classifying the land into two categories i.e. one, upto the depth

of 100 karams on the G.T. Road and the remaining land beyond

that depth, was not at all justified.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and

order of the High Court, these Special Leave Petitions have been

filed by the land owners/claimants, and on the other hand, the State

of Punjab were aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court

also filed Special Leave Petitions, which on grant of leave, were

heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.

We have heard the learned counsel for the

claimants/appellants and the learned counsel for the 5

Respondent/State of Punjab. We have also examined the Judgment

of the High Court as well as the order of the Reference Court and

other materials on record, including the oral and documentary

evidence. The only question that was agitated before us by the

learned counsel for the claimants/appellants was in respect of the

rejection of the application for acceptance of additional evidence

filed by the claimants/appellants. It appears that the application for

acceptance of additional evidence was filed by the

claimants/appellants to admit the Aks Shajra by way of additional

evidence. While dealing with the application for acceptance of

additional evidence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

claimants/appellants had sought to produce Aks Shajra as an

additional evidence in the said appeal. While dealing with this

aspect of the matter, the High Court observed as follows :-

"Dealing with the question of additional evidence, at the first instance, it must be noticed that the perusal of the aforesaid Aks Shajra clearly shows that the land of Chara Mandi is at quite distance from the present acquired land. There are two canals intervening in between the land acquired for the Chara Mandi and the present acquired land. The land of Chara Mandi is also shown to 6

be on an intersection of G.T. Road and Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur Road. The present acquired land is not only at quite a distance from the land of Chara Mandi but also cannot be held to be comparable. A perusal of Aks Shajra further shows that the adjacent area to the acquired land of Chara Mandi was covered with factories and houses. A 74.9 acres Transport Nagar Scheme by Improvement Trust Jalandhar was in existence. Industrial Focal Point was also situated nearby. A further perusal of the judgment rendered in Mukesh Kumar's case (supra) shows that the aforesaid land for Chara Mandi was situated within the limits of Jalandhar Municipal Corporation. All these factors show that the land of Chara Mandi is neither comparable nor the assessment of the market value of the aforesaid land is relevant for assessment of the market value in the present appeals. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the prayer made by the appellants to allow the present application for additional evidence. Thus, the application filed by the appellants for additional evidence is disallowed."

In the impugned Judgment itself, the High Court had taken

into consideration the application for acceptance of additional

evidence and also considered the case of Mukesh Kumar vs.

Collector [1987 (2) PLR 370] and on a comparison of the facts in

Mukesh Kumar's case (supra) and the present appeals, came to a

finding that the facts of Mukesh Kumar's case were totally 7

different from the facts involved in the present case. After

considering the facts on which Mukesh Kumar's case was based,

the High Court, in the impugned order, came to the conclusion that

the land of Chara Mandi was neither comparable nor the

assessment of the market value of the acquired lands was relevant

for the assessment of the market value in the present appeals. Therefore, we are of the view that neither the decision in Mukesh

Kumar's case nor the facts of the present appeals were similar to

that of the same. Hence, we do not find any reason to hold that

any enhancement would be possible on the basis of the documents

produced by the parties before us.

For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the clear opinion that the

High Court has rightly rejected the application for acceptance of

additional evidence although in its judgment it discussed the effect

of Aks Shajra and concluded that such a document which is sought

to be produced is not comparable with the facts of present appeal.

No other submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties.

8

In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the impugned order in these appeals. Accordingly,

these appeals are dismissed with a direction that the compensation

awarded by the High Court shall be paid to the

claimants/appellants within two months from this date.

Accordingly, the appeals of the claimants/appellants are

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

In so far as the appeals of the State of Punjab are concerned,

in view of the discussions made hereinabove and in view of the

fact that the learned counsel for the respondents also could not

satisfy us that the enhancement made by the High Court was in any

way, irregular, illegal or arbitrary, we are of the view that the

appeals filed by the State of Punjab have no merit also and

accordingly, the said appeals are also dismissed.

We find from the record that at the time of issuance of notice

in the Special Leave Petition Nos. 2769-2798 of 2008 preferred by

the State of Punjab, the State of Punjab was directed to deposit a

sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs and such cost is now lying with the 9

Registry of this Court. Since we have condoned the delay in filing

the appeals of the State of Punjab, we direct that the

claimants/respondents should be allowed to withdraw the costs

deposited with the Registry of this Court.

With the aforesaid directions, these appeals stand dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.

........................

...J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

...........................J. [R.M.Lodha]

NEW DELHI:

SEPTEMBER 04, 2009