Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 959 of 1991
Petitioner: Ranjit Singh & Ors.
Respondent: State of Punjab & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 959 of 1991
Judges: V.N. KHARE & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 26, 2001
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 16, 17, 18 – Compensation – Land first acquired vide notification in February, 1981 – Reference court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per acre – Subsequent notification in September 1981 for some other land in same village – No appeal against orders of reference court in earlier matter – Quality of land same – Land situated in same village. Held that there is no justification for awarding lesser compensation in this case. Appeal allowed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The State of Punjab proposed to acquire a large tract of land in the district of Hoshiarpur and the acquisition was made in piecemeal manner. The first notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 25th February, 1981 which also included the acquisition of land situate in village Raili. The collector gave an award offering compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,743.36 per acre in respect of the said acquired land. However, on reference in L.A. No. 78/82 the additional district judge, Hoshiarpur enhanced the compensation to Rs. 21,000/- per acre by his judgment and order dated 29th March, 1984. It is admitted between the parties that the said judgment has attained finality. Again, the government by notification dated 25th September, 1981 issued under section 4 of the Act proposed to acquire certain more land including the land belonging to the appellants herein situate in village Raili. The collector awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per acre as compensation in respect of barani land and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin land along with 8% further compensation. At the instance of the claimants, the matter was referred to the district judge. On reference the additional district judge enhanced the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per acre in respect of barani land situate in village Raili. The state of Punjab thereafter preferred an appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree of the learned additional district judge. No cross objection was filed by the claimants. Before the High Court the appellant-claimants referred to judgment of learned addl. district judge dated 29.3.1994 rendered in L.A. No. 78/82 wherein the court in a similar situation and for similar land of
the same village earlier, awarded Rs. 21,000/- per acre and, prayed that the order the judgment of the reference court does not call for any interference. The High Court, without considering that aspect of the matter, allowed the appeal of the state and set aside the order of the additional district judge and restored the award given by the collector. The claimants thereafter preferred a letters patent appeal, but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
2. The short question that is involved in the present appeal is that whether the appellant-claimants are entitled to same rate of compensation as was awarded to the claimants in respect of the land covered by the notification dated 25th February, 1981. If is not disputed that the judgment of the addl. district judge in L.A. No. 87/82 related to the land, situate in village Raili and has attained finality. It is also not disputed that the said judgement related to acquisition of land in village Raili earlier to acquisition of appellants’ land and the land of appellants has been acquired by the subsequent notification. It is also not disputed that the quality of land and its situation is same as that of in L.A. No. 78/82 for which compensation awarded was Rs. 21,000/- per acre. We, therefore, find no justification for the High Court awarding lesser compensation to the appellants. In any case the appellants are entitled to compensation as enhanced by the reference court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court under challenge and affirm the judgment of the addl. district judge, Hoshiarpur.
3. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The State of Punjab proposed to acquire a large tract of land in the district of Hoshiarpur and the acquisition was made in piecemeal manner. The first notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 25th February, 1981 which also included the acquisition of land situate in village Raili. The collector gave an award offering compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,743.36 per acre in respect of the said acquired land. However, on reference in L.A. No. 78/82 the additional district judge, Hoshiarpur enhanced the compensation to Rs. 21,000/- per acre by his judgment and order dated 29th March, 1984. It is admitted between the parties that the said judgment has attained finality. Again, the government by notification dated 25th September, 1981 issued under section 4 of the Act proposed to acquire certain more land including the land belonging to the appellants herein situate in village Raili. The collector awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- per acre as compensation in respect of barani land and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin land along with 8% further compensation. At the instance of the claimants, the matter was referred to the district judge. On reference the additional district judge enhanced the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per acre in respect of barani land situate in village Raili. The state of Punjab thereafter preferred an appeal before the High Court against the judgment and decree of the learned additional district judge. No cross objection was filed by the claimants. Before the High Court the appellant-claimants referred to judgment of learned addl. district judge dated 29.3.1994 rendered in L.A. No. 78/82 wherein the court in a similar situation and for similar land of
the same village earlier, awarded Rs. 21,000/- per acre and, prayed that the order the judgment of the reference court does not call for any interference. The High Court, without considering that aspect of the matter, allowed the appeal of the state and set aside the order of the additional district judge and restored the award given by the collector. The claimants thereafter preferred a letters patent appeal, but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the claimants have preferred this appeal.
2. The short question that is involved in the present appeal is that whether the appellant-claimants are entitled to same rate of compensation as was awarded to the claimants in respect of the land covered by the notification dated 25th February, 1981. If is not disputed that the judgment of the addl. district judge in L.A. No. 87/82 related to the land, situate in village Raili and has attained finality. It is also not disputed that the said judgement related to acquisition of land in village Raili earlier to acquisition of appellants’ land and the land of appellants has been acquired by the subsequent notification. It is also not disputed that the quality of land and its situation is same as that of in L.A. No. 78/82 for which compensation awarded was Rs. 21,000/- per acre. We, therefore, find no justification for the High Court awarding lesser compensation to the appellants. In any case the appellants are entitled to compensation as enhanced by the reference court. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court under challenge and affirm the judgment of the addl. district judge, Hoshiarpur.
3. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
