N.C Jain, J. (Oral) — This judgment of mine would dispose of Regular First Appeal's No. 1145 and 1832 to 1834 of 1988 filed by the landowners-claimants, No. 774 to 796 of 1989 filed by the State of Punjab and Cross-Objections No. 27-CI of 1990 filed by the landowner in Regular First Appeal No. 779 of 1989 of State of Punjab relating to acquisition of land in village Sher Majra (in short called Sher Majra cases') and Regular First Appeals No. 1435, 1820, 1458, 1659, 1660 to 1665 and 2337 of 1989, all filed by the landowner claimants relating to acquisition of land in village Pasiana (in short called ‘Pasiana cases’). The landowners-claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Judge whereas the State of Punjab has sought reduction thereof. All these appeals and Cross-Objections are being disposed of together as they arise out of a common notification dated 22nd May, 1981 issued by the Government of Punjab under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Even the Land Acquisition Collector and the District Judge have determined the same amount of compensation, i.e, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively for both the chunks of land by their separate awards.
2. Land measuring 259 Kanals 1 Marla and 34.14 Acres (272 Kanals and a few Marlas), situated in village Sher Majra and Pasiana respectively has been Acquired by issuance of the aforesaid notification for the construction of Patiala By-Pass. For determination of compensation, the District Judge has placed reliance upon an award Exhibit P40 given on 17-9-1987 Page: 82by this Court in Mohinder Singh v. Union of India and others, LPA No. 442 of 1984. In that case, the Division Bench of this Court was evaluating the acquired land of villages Kheri Gujran, Bir Kheri Gujran, Haji Majra, Malo Majra, Damo Majra including the lands, situated in the present two villages, i.e, Sher Majra and Pasiana. This Court was dealing with a notification dated 21-1-1977 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Since the land in the aforementioned villages was evaluated at Rs. 57,400/- per acre, the District Judge by his awards under challenge before this Court has given 10% per annum rise on account of price rise in view of the time gap of two notifications, i.e, 21-1-1977 and 22-5-1981 in the present case. This is how the District Judge has determined the market value of the acquired land in the present cases at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre.
3. The claimants during the trial of the land references have produced sale deeds Exhibits P2 to P12, the chart of which is reproduced below:
Sr. No.
Exhibit No.
Date of sale
Area sold
Price paid
Revenue limits
Price per acre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.
P-2
4-8-1981
75 Sq. Yards
Rs. 1500/-
Sher Majra
96,000/-
2.
P-3
19-1-1981
500 Sq. Yards
Rs. 30,000/-
Kheri Gujran
2,90,400/-
3.
P-4
30-11-1981
250 Sq. Yards
Rs. 7000/-
Sher Majra
1,35,520/-
4.
P-5
13-7-1982
1 bigha
Rs. 20,000/-
Kheri Gujran
96,000/-
5.
P-6
29-6-1982
1-13 biswas
Rs. 33.000/-
-do-
96,800/-
6.
P-7
13-7-1982
1-7 biswas
Rs. 27,000/-
-do-
96,800/-
7.
P-8
3-6-1981
18 biswas
Rs. 27,000/-
-do-
1,44,000/-
8.
P-9
18-8-1980
10 biswas
Rs. 15,000/-
-do-
1,40,000/-
9.
P-10
24-11-1980
464 Sq. Yards
Rs. 28,000/-
Kheri Gujran
2,92,000/-
10.
P-11
25-5-1981
6 biswas
Rs. 9,000/-
-do-
1,45,200/-
11.
P-12
27-7-1981
445 Sq. Yards
Rs. 28,000/-
-do-
3,04,539.33
4. Out of the aforementioned sale deeds, Exhibits P-2 and P-4 pertain to the sale of land situated in village Sher Majra. The other sale deeds pertain to the sale of land situated in village Kheri Gujran. The perusal of the chart would show that sale deeds Exhibits P-3. P-9 and P-10 were registered before the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present cases, whereas Exhibits P-2 and P-4 are post-dated notification.
5. In view of the aforementioned factual position, it has been agreed by Miss Surjit Kaur Tanque, Sr. Advocate, assisted by S/Shri R.B.S Chahal, Rakesh Gupta and Kamaljit Singh Bakshi, Advocate, that the claimants are entitled to have the market value of their acquired land determined on the basis of the sale instances produced in the instant cases rather than to have their land evaluated on the basis of the previous award given by this Court. The precise argument of the counsel is that if they have led better evidence warranting better determination of compensation, they should not Page: 83be tagged to the previous award when this Court at an earlier occasion did not have the occassion to look at the evidence produced in these cases. The argument is well merited. There cannot be any doubt that the evaluation in award relating to the same village is very important and relevant but at the same time such an award will not bind the claimants in another case and they cannot be debarred from either leading evidence of transactions of sales more comparable in valuation of acquired land than award of the Court and the claimants covered by a different notification can always insist that they are entitled to better evaluation on the basis of sale transactions which they have produced. It has remained undisputed before me that the precise sale transactions produced in the present cases were not subjected to examination in the previous award Exhibit P-40 and therefore, this Court can always look at the instances of sale produced in this case and therefore, this cannot bind the claimants of these cases the award given by this Court at an earlier occasion. In somewhat similar circumstances, this is the precise view which was taken by this Court in Birinder Singh and others v. The State of Haryana, 1990 PLJ 90. Even otherwise position has changed between 21st January, 1977 and 22nd May, 1981. It has been noticed in the award Exhibit P-40 that Kheri Gujran was adjacent to Patiala town and Sher Majra was adjacent to Kheri Gujran. In other words, while going from Patiala to Sangrur, Kheri Gujran comes first and Sher Majra comes thereafter. It can well be presumed that within a period of four years, the potentialities of land, situated in Sher Majra, must have improved and might have acquired the same potentialities or little less potentialities which Kheri Gujran had at the time of acquisition in the year 1977, as the acquisition in the year 1977 took place for defence purposes. In view thereof the claimants can certainly contend with success that sale instances from Sher Majra and Kheri Gujran should be considered by this Court for determining the market value of the acquired land covered by the present notification.
6. In this view of the matter, the question which falls for determination before this Court is as to which transactions of sale can be taken as relevant for evaluating the acquired land. In the considered view of this Court, the transactions pertaining to the sale of lands in village Sher Majra can be taken into consideration, may be, they are post-dated notification. No evidence has been led by the State of Punjab that after the issuance of notification, the prices had risen or that exaggerated or inflated prices have been shown in transactions of sale of village Sher Majra. Not even a suggestion was put to any of the claimants that in Exhibits P-2 and P-4, sale considerations have been mentioned on the higher side. As regards sale transactions of village Kheri Gujran, this Court is not inclined to take into consideration post-dated sale deeds and would be considering only those sale deeds which are pre dated notification. In view thereof, only Exhibits P-2, P-3. P-4, P-9 and P-10 would be taken into consideration and after taking out the average sale price per acre, this Court would be applying necessary cuts which shall be twofold in the considered view of this Court. One cut to be applied is in view of the smallness of siz of the sale transactions and the other cut would be made as this Court would be relying upon two sale transactions of village Sher Majra, which are post-dated, and of village Kheri Gujran, which is adjacent village. The average sale price per acre of the above mentioned transactions of sale Exhibits P-2, P 3, P-4, P-9 and P-10 comes to Rs. 1,90,784/- per acre. After applying all my guess-work, which is inner in land acquisition matters, I am of the view that 45% deduction should be applied. A cut of 30% is being applied in view of the smallness of the size of the sale transactions and another cut of 15% is being applied in Page: 84view of the fact that this Court is considering two sale transactions from village Sher Majra, which are post-dated, and three transactions covering the sale of lands, Situated in village Kheri Gujran. The sale instances of Kheri Gujran cannot be said to be exactly comparable vis-a-vis the acquired land as Sher Majra comes after Kheri Gujran and, therefore, a cut of 15% is considered appropriate in view of Kheri Gujran sale transactions and in view of post-dated sale deeds of village Sher Majra. A cut of 15% has been considered necessary by this Court in view of yet another factor which cannot be ignored and which is that Pasiana village is still further from village Sher Majra. The factum of location of Kheri Gujran being adjacent to Patiala and further fact that Sher Majra is adjacent to village Kheri Gujran and still further location of Pasiana being adjacent to Sher Majra has not been disputed before this Court during the course of arguments. In consequence thereof, this Court is of the view that the application of 45% cut is necessary for determining the market value of the acquired land. While applying a cut of 45%, this Court determines the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,04,931/- which can be rounded off to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
7. This leads me to the argument of Miss Surjit Kaur Tanque, Senior Advocate, that the claimants have not been given damages sustained by them on account of their land having been severed on two sides due to the construction of the By-Pass road. The argument is that on account of acquisition of lands of claimants, one portion has been left towards the village side whereas the other portion has been left across the road. In this respect, the learned District Judge, while dealing with Sher Majra cases, has observed that the land severed on both sides is accessible and that land immediately abutting on both sides of the by-pass became more valuable. While dealing with Pasiana cases, the learned District Judge is of the view that by the construction of a pipe underground; the land across' the road which has been left without any irrigation can be irrigated with the help of pipes. These observations apply not only to Pasiana eases but also to Sher Majra cases. Similarly the observations of the District Judge which are applicable to Sher Majra cases regarding the land having become more valuable apply to Pasiana cases also. However, the fact remains that for the construction of pipes, something should have been granted by the District Judge and roust-re granted by this Court. No evidence has been led as to what would be the cost of laying pipes underground. I while applying all my guess-work come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per acre under Section 23(3) of the Act.
8. Before parting with the judgment, one more relief has to be granted to two claimants-Sadhu Ram and Ram Lal in Regular First Appeals No. 337 and 1664 of 1989 respectively. The land of these two claimants measuring one acre each, which was within Abadi, has been acquired. It has been held by this Court in Surjit Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and another, 1990 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 6 : 1990 PLJ 69, that the land which is in Abadi should be valued at double the rate. Reasoning advanced by the District Judge that there is discrepancy in the statements of the claimants and the Patwari has not impressed me. According to the plan Exhibit P-1. the lands of the above mentioned claimants are shown within Abadi. The claimants have appeared in the witness-box and deposed on oath that their land to the extent of one acre was in Abadi. Nothing could be elicited in the cross examination of the aforesaid claimants that the land was not within Abadi. The statement of Patwari to the effect that the land was near Abadi does not negative the statements of the claimants and the plan. In view thereof, the lands of the above mentioned two claimants would be considered within Abadi. Following the ratio laid down in Surjit Singh's case (supra), I determine the market value of the Page: 85acquired land of the above mentioned two claimants to the extent of one acre each at the fate of Rs. 2,10,000/-.
9. In the light of the observations made above, the appeals and Cross-Objections filed by the claimants are allowed with proportionate costs, whereas the appeals filed by the State are dismissed with no order as to costs. The claimants are also held entitled to the grant of all the statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1-A), 23(1) and 28 of the Act. However, the grant of Rs. 5,000/- per acre on account of severance would not be subjected to the statutory benefits. The claimants are granted two months' time to make up the deficiency in Court fee, if any.