Lal Chand (Died) Thru. Lrs. v. State Of Punjab And Another

Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The claimants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 29.7.1992 passed by Addl. District Judge, Patiala by which the claimants were held entitled to receive compensation at the rate of 1,24,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 74,000/- for Gair Mumkin land. The claimants were also held entitled to severance charges and all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of Punjab vide notification dated 28.8.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act intended to acquire 15.50 acres of land situated in village Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala for the purposes of the construction of SYL Canal. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued vide notification dated 30.9.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Project vide his award dated 5.8.1987 awarded compensation at the following rates:- 1. Chahi Land Rs. 62,000/- per acre 2. Barani Rs. 50,000/- per acre 3. Gair Mumkin Rs. 35,000/- per acre 3. The Land Acquisition Collector vide separate supplementary Award No. 209- P/SYL dated 5.8.1987 also awarded the compensation for severance of land at the rate of 25% of the value of the land for unacquired portion lying beyond the canal from the homesteads of the persons concerned subject to a maximum of 5 acres land in each case. 4. Being dis-satisfied with the award of Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Collector for referring their case to the District Judge. On reference, the Addl. District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 29.7.1992 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,24,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 74,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Apart from the above, compensation for severance of land was also awarded. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. Jain, counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Addl. District Judge, Patiala while enhancing the compensation, relied upon the judgment in RFA 2807 of 1987 Exhibit P-12 whereby, the compensation for the land acquired in the same village vide notification dated 30.12.1982 was awarded as under :- 1. Chahi Land Rs. 1,24,000/- per acre 2. Gair Mumkin Land Rs. 74,400/- per acre 6. Learned counsel submits that against the judgment rendered in RFA 2807 of 1987, LPA No. 7 of 1993 titled State of Punjab v. Khushal Singh, was filed which was dismissed and hence the amount awarded in RFA 2807 of 1987 became final. Learned counsel further contends that this Court in RFA 2911 of 1989 Prem Chand and another v. State of Punjab awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 79,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. It is contended that the land which was the subject matter of the acquisition in Prem Chand's case (supra) pertains to the same village i.e. Khera Gajju i.e. the village in which the land is acquired in the present case also. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 20.8.1985 in Prem Chand's case (supra). 7. It was argued that in RFA 2807 of 1987 the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13.12.1982, whereas in the present case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.8.1985 i.e., 3 years after the acquisition of land, which was subject matter in RFA 2807 of 1987, hence the appellants are entitled for enhanced compensation for 3 years. It is contended by the learned counsel that the claimants should be given enhancement at the rate of 12% per annum. 8. On the basis of the above it has been contended that in Prem Chand's case (supra) 3 years benefit was given to the claimants because the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in that case was issued 3 years after the issuance of notification in RFA 2807 of 1987. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State agrees that the land which was the subject matter of acquisition in RFA 2807 of 1987 as well as in RFA 2811 of 1989 was acquired in the same village i.e. in village Khera Gajju and for the same purpose i.e. for construction of SYL Canal. 10. As the compensation in the present case also relates to acquisition of land in Khera Gajju and the land was acquired for the same purposes i.e. for construction of SYL Canal, and as the acquisition was 3 years subsequent to the acquisition of land in RFA 2807 of 1987, therefore, the appellants in the present case are entitled to the same compensation as awarded in RFA 2911 of 1989 titled as Prem Chand and another v. State of Punjab. 11. In view of the above I modify the judgment dated 29.7.1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala and award compensation at that rate of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 79,200/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. 12. As far as the question of enhancement for severence of land is concerned, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants as adequate compensation has already been awarded by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Patiala vide his impugned judgment dated 29.7.1992. The appellants are also entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants has also claimed compensation on the ground of severence of land. Learned counsel contends that as all the other claimants have received compensation for severence of land hence the appellant is also entitled to claim compensation and receive the same. He has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence by placing on record the copy of the site plan in order to show that the land acquired has been severed from the rest of his land holdings and also from the village abadi. 14. I have also perused the impugned judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala, all the other claimants had led evidence to show that the land had been severed from the rest of the holdings as well as from the village abadi. But the appellant in the present case did not lead any evidence. Even the site plan which is sought to be adduced in evidence is prepared by a private approved draftsman and there is no reason why this could not be led in the evidence, while the case was going on before the reference Court. 15. In view of the above, I find no merit to allow the application under Rule Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. Resultantly, the appellant in the present case is not entitled to any compensation on the ground of the severance of his holding. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.