Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab Etc

IN T JOGINDER SI

Vs

STATE OF PU CORAM: HON

Present: Mr

Mr

HARKESH MA [1]. By

21.04.1997 pass referred as "Re Acquisition Act instance of the partly allowed. [2]. Bri situated within Nagar (Mohali)

29.11.1989 unde construction of Collector in term following effect

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA RFA No. Date of D

INGH

UNJAB AND ORS.

N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKES . Pritam Saini, Advocate the appellant . Siddharth Sandhu, Asstt. A.G., **** ANUJA, J. (Oral) way of present appeal, challeng sed by the Additional District Ju ference Court"), whereby petiti t, 1894 (hereinafter to be refe appellants-landowners seeking e efly stating, certain land ow the revenue estate of village S ) came to be acquired vide N er Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 SYL Canal, followed by an awa ms of Section 11 of the 1894 A t:-

JAB AND HARYANA ARH 1674 of 1997 (O&M) Decision: 10.07.2024 ......Appellant(s) ....Respondent(s) SH MANUJA Punjab. ge has been laid to an award da udge, Rupanagar (hereinafter to ion under Section 18 of the La erred as '1894 Act') filed at enhancement of compensation w wned by the appellant/landow Sotal, Tehsil Kharar, District S Notifications dated 03.11.1989 a Act respectively for the purpose ard passed by the Land Acquisit Act, fixing the market value to

o be was wner SAS

"Ch

Bar

Gai

[3]. Agg Section 18 of th to the tune of R trees. The Refe against guava tr the land to the fo

"Ch

Bar

Ban

Gai

[4]. By been assailed w

18.09.1985 land Kharar, District purpose i.e. con Court vide judg concluding part pric rate Bar own

hahi

Rs.86,800 rani

Rs.70,000 ir Mumkin

Rs.49,000 grieved thereof, the appellant/ he 1894 Act seeking enhancemen Rs.2 lakhs per acre besides claim erence Court vide award dated rees to the appellant/landowner, ollowing effect:- hahi land

Rs.1,00,0 rani land

Rs.75,000 njar Jadid land Rs.65,000 ir Mumkin land Rs.60,000 way of present appeal, the afor while submitting that on an earlie d pertaining to the same reven SAS Nagar (Mohali) was acquir nstruction of SYL Canal and com gment dated 26.11.2008 passed of the said judgment is reproduc "In view of the above, I have ce of the acquired land at the rele Chahi land, Rs.1,60,000/- for Ba Gair Mumkin land. Resultantly, all the appeals file extent that the market value of th e of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for Ch rani land and Rs.1,20,000/- per a ners shall also be entitled to other

0/- per acre 0/- per acre 0/- per acre" /landowner filed Reference un nt of market value of acquired la ming compensation qua 200 gu

21.04.1997 though declined re , yet enhanced the market value 00/- per acre 0/- per acre 0/- per acre 0/- per acre" resaid Award dated 21.04.1997 er occasion vide Notification da nue estate i.e. village Sotal, Teh red by the respondents for the sa mpensation was determined by t d in RFA No.2267 of 1990. T ced hereunder:- no hesitation to hold that the mar evant time was Rs.2,00,000/- per a rani land and Rs.1,20,000/- per a ed by the land owners are accepted he acquired land is determined at hahi land, Rs.1,60,000/- per acre cre for Gair Mumkin land. The l r statutory benefits as awarded by

nder ava elief has hsil ame this The acre acre

Add Pun

[4.1]. In appropriate esca for the period o 1894 Act pertai estate and perce value awarded b [4.2]. the yield based f appellant/landow and produced on [5].

On appellant/landow submitting that Reference Court record and the s [6]. I h paper book. I fin for the appellant [7]. In t records as well pertaining to the for the same p previous occasio

ditional District Judge, Rupnagar njab are hereby, dismissed." view thereof, learned counsel alation needs to be awarded in of difference between the notifi ining to the two separate acquis entage of appreciation can be d by the Collector in relation to two Learned counsel further subm for the guava fruit trees was requ wner, while relying upon the rep n record by the appellant/landow n the other hand, the pra wner has been vehemently oppo the amount of compensation t in its impugned award upon ap ame, thus, calls for no interferen have heard learned counsel for nd substance in the submissions t/landowner. the given facts and circumstanc l as the discussion made here e same village Sotal, Tehsil Kh public purpose of construction on vide Notification dated 18.0

r. The appeals filed by the State for the appellant submits that favour of the appellant/landow fications issued under Section 4 sitions regarding the same reven drawn from the increase of mar o acquisitions. mits that an appropriate increase uired to be awarded in favour of port made by the Horticulture exp wner as Ex.PW-1/A. ayer made on behalf of osed by learned State counsel wh was adequately assessed by ppreciation of evidence available nce. the parties and gone through made on behalf of learned coun ces of the case and upon perusal einabove, it is apparent that la harar, District SAS Nagar (Moh of SYL Canal was acquired

09.1985 issued under Section 4

an wner 4 of nue e on f the pert hile e on nsel l of hali) on 4 of

1894 Act and ag dated 03.11.198

As the Collector de 39% on the ma from the table gi N L C B B G M

[8].

Fur No.2267 of 199 Notification date N L C B G M

In acquisition of l

03.11.1989, it w similar apprecia

gain it came to be acquired for 9 (in the present case). s per records while assessing the eemed it appropriate to award a arket price pertaining to two ac iven as below:- Nature of Land Market value a by the LAC per to Notification

18.09.1985 Chahi Rs.62,000/- per ac Barani Rs.50,000/- per ac Bagh Barani Rs.50,000/- per ac Gair Mumkin Rs.35,000/- per ac rther, this Court vide decision 90 enhanced the market value in ed 18.09.1985 to the following e Nature of Land Market value as Court vide dec passed in FAO N Chahi Rs.2,00,000/- per Barani Rs.1,60,000/- per Gair Mumkin Rs.1,20,000/- per such circumstances, in humbl and under present acquisition w would be appropriate, in case th ation of around 40% over and ab

the same purpose vide Notificat e market value of the acquired la appreciation to the tune of arou cquisitions which is clearly visi assessed rtaining dated Market value asses by the LAC pertain to Notification da

03.11.1989 cre Rs.86,800/-per acre cre Rs.70,000/-per acre cre ____ cre Rs.49,000/-per acre dated 26.11.2008 passed in R n relation to the land acquired v effect:-

ssessed/enhanced by this cision dated 26.11.2008 No.2267 of 1990 acre acre acre le opinion of this Court for which relates to notification da he appellant/landowner is award bove the market value fixed by t

tion and, und ible sed ning RFA vide ded

Court in relati

18.09.1985 alon 1894 Act. [9]. As the two sides ab are 200. The on relying upon the 'Nagar Singh appellant submi the basis of sam "xx cou

The hereunder:- asse num ann ano has mod view gain yiel bro also to t will Acq

on to the acquisition of land ng with other statutory benefits regards compensation qua guav out the number of trees which ev nly dispute is about the assessm e decision dated 08.02.2013 pass and others vs. The State of ts that the assessment of compe me formula adopted therein which xx the basic value of trees + the uld bear fruit x the income per ye e operative part from the afor "On the other hand, I find essment has been made by taking mber of remaining years that it cou multiplying factor. The income p num and the assessment is that t other 19 years. By taking the total s taken the income, which could dification, which I will make is to w of the better particulars regard ned in the report Ex.R1. In all ot ld per tree per year, I adopt the va ught through Ex.P2. So reckoned t o add 10% premium in the manner the market and assess the total val l also be entitled to the benefit und quisition Act."

d in terms of Notification da and interest as provided under va trees, there is no dispute betw ven as per report of the responde ment of compensation for which sed in RFA No.3038 of 1992 tit Punjab', learned counsel for ensation should have been made h goes to the following effect:- e number of remaining years tha ear x the multiplying factor." ementioned judgment is extrac from the report of PW1 that g the basic value of the trees + uld bear fruit x the income per yea per tree has been taken as ₹50/- they would have yielded income l number of trees as 350, the witn have fetched ₹1,96,350/-. The o o substitute 350 trees as 266 trees ding the number of trees that I h ther respects as regards the value aluation as taken in the report of P the total amount will be ₹1,64,080/ r assessed by the PW1 by its nearn lue to be ₹1,80,488/-. The landown der Sections 23(2) and 28 of the L

een ents by tled e on at it cted ar x per ness only s in have PW1 /-. I ness

[10]. In s the time of acqu taking income p of trees at the ti to Rs.1,50,000/- land under acqu value for the tre entitled to other [11]. Wit the present appe [12]. All

July 10, 2024 Atik Wh Wh

such circumstances, taking the n uisition of land as per report prep per tree @ Rs.50 per annum for a ime of acquisition being 2 to 4 y -. Further, 10% premium is als uisition with the local vegetable ees thus comes out to be Rs.1,65 statutory benefits and interest as th the aforesaid modification of eal is disposed of. l pending application(s), if any, s

(HA

hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable

number of Guava trees to be 200 pared by the respondents and wh a period of around 16 years (the years) income fetched would co so added towards proximity of e fruit market and the total mar ,000/-. The landowner shall also s provided under the 1894 Act. f the award of the Reference Co shall stand disposed of. ARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE s/No s/No

0 at hile age ome o be urt,