STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HANS RAJ DEAD
LAWS(SC)-1994-2-120
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on February 15,1994

STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
VERSUS
Hans Raj Dead Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND DY DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE NIZAMBAD VS. G NARAYANA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1995-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [LAWS(KAR)-2004-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHINDHA FAKIRA PATIL VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2011-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. JOSE MINGUEL FRANCISCO BRAGANZA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
JIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1996-12-81] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANT ATMA RAM VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-129] [REFERRED TO]
ANJANI MOLU DESSAI VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
MEHRAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST REGD FARIDKOT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2012-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
MAJ. GEN. KAPIL MEHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-99] [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL KISHORE SHAH AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-199] [REFERRED TO]
ANNASAHEB SHANKAR DESAI VS. COLLECTOR [LAWS(BOM)-2008-3-221] [REFERRED]
PERFECT THREAD MILLS LIMITED VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LAND ACQUISITION) CUM SDO, GIRWA & ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-162] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DIGRAS VS. SATISCHANDRA RIKHABCHANDRA MEHTA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VS. DHONDIBA DAGADU PAWAGI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-286] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ('the Act' for short) was published in the State Gazette of Haryana on 3/01/1967, proposing acquisition of land for construction of Panchayat Office building at Tanda. Later on, due to consolidation proceedings, without withdrawing earlier notification, another notification dated 28/08/1968 was published under Section 4 (1 of the Act, to acquire 25 kanals 2 marlas of land for the same purpose leaving apart the residue for the Civil Hospital. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 28.46 per marla on 30/05/1973. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the District Judge, Hoshiarpur enhanced the market value of acquired land to Rs. 50. 00 per marla. On further appeal under Section 54 of the Act, a learned Single Judge of the High court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 375. 00 per marla. He also awarded Rs. 17,000. 00 for superstructures shops constructed by the respondents on the acquired land. Thereafter, LPA was filed by the State and also cross-objections by the respondents. The division bench confirmed the decree of the learned Single Judge by its judgment dated 21/09/1979. Thus these appeals by special leave are filed by the State questioning the enhanced compensation.
(2.)The learned Single Judge, apart from relying on sale deeds A-4 dated 16/12/1968 and A-5 dated 18/04/1966 of two marlas relating tolands in the neighbourhood, relied on additional evidence adduced, namely, mutation proceedings of the sale deeds R-3 dated 20/03/1965, R-4 dated 15/04/1965 and R-5 dated 4/08/1965 relating to 9 kanals 12 marlas purchased by Hans Raj one of the respondents herein which formed part of the acquired land for Rs. 4,000. 00, and 7 marlas for Rs. 4,000. 00 by another witness and 10 marlas for Rs. 780. 00 which worked out @ 20. 83, Rs. 57. 00, Rs. 78. 00 per marla respectively. The learned Single Judge having given the finding that there is no development between the dates of the purchase by the respondent Hans Raj on 20/03/1965 till date of acquisition, making an average of all the prices of sale transactions worked out @ Rs. 375. 00 per maria.
(3.)It is contended for the appellants that Hans Raj, one of the claimant- respondents in these appeals purchased the same land which is under acquisition in 1965 @ rs 20. 83 per maria and when the notification was issued in 1967, thereafter several sale deeds were brought into existence and, therefore, they are not bona fide transactions and they cannot form any basis, It is contended for the respondents that they have also filed cross-objections in this court after the purchase made by Hans Raj in 1965 and before the date of notification under Section 4 (1 large colonies/abadi have come into existence in and around the acquired land. Hans Raj himself constructed shops in the acquired land. The lands are situated close to the bus stand and several developments have taken place. Therefore, the lands possessed of potential value for building purpose and were also adjacent to the main road. Thereby the fixation of the market value @ Rs. 375. 00 per marla by the learned Single Judge was not high. On the other hand they were entitled to the market value @ Rs. 3,000. 00 per marla. However, in the course of arguments before us, learned counsel appearing for contesting parties agreed that the market value of the acquired land may be determined on the basis of R-5 dated 4/08/1965 which worked out @ Rs. 78. 00 per marla and compensation may be given on that basis.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.