J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose F.A.Os. Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70 of 1975, alongwith the cross -objections filed in all the appeals as all of them arise out of the same judgment.
(2.) BY two separate notifications, dated 23rd October, 1953 and 21st April, 1954, the agricultural land measuring 28 Kanals 2 Marlas, was requisitioned by the State Government for the construction of cheap tenements near the Industrial Area of Jullundur. The requisitioned land was situated on the road leading to Sodal. Subsequently, the said land was acquisitioned in April, 1963, under the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the compensation was determined at the rate Rs. 420/ - per Kanal by virtue of the provisions contained in sub -section (4)(a) of Section 8 of the Act, according to which the compensation had to be paid at the market value or twice the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market if it had been sold on the date of requisition, whichever is less. Since the petitioners were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the State Government on the basis of compensation allowed by the Military Officer, District Judge, Jullundur was appointed as the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act. The following issues were framed for the determination of the dispute between the parties: - 1. At the time of the acquisition what was the right, title or interest of each claimant or set of claimants as the case may be, in the acquired property or in any part thereof? 2. Whether and, if so, what amount each claimant or set of claimants is separately entitled to get in consequence of the acquisition of this property? Whether the claimants are entitled to get any sum or compensation for compulsory acquisition?
(3.) WHETHER and, if so, what amounts are the claimants entitled to get as interest by way of compensation? The learned District Judge by his order dated 13th June, 1967, refused to enhance the amount of compensation and maintained the amount as allowed by the Military Officer. 3. There was an appeal to the High Court against the said order dated 13th June, 1967. Though the learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 15th March, 1972 but in Letters Patent Appeal, which was decided on 8th January, 1973, clause (b) of Sub -sec. (4) of Section 8 of the Act, was held to be ultra vires of Article 31 of the Constitution of India and the following order was then passed: - We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Arbitrator and remand the case back to him for determination of the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Clause (a) of sub -section (4) of Section 8 of the Punjab Act. In as much as this point was not raised before the learned Single Judge, although in a decision of the Supreme Court was available. We make no order as to costs. On remand, an opportunity was given to the parties for leading evidence and consequently, issue No. 2 was determined afresh by taking note of the evidence, which was recorded before the order of remand and the one recorded subsequently After discussing the evidence produced by the parties, the learned District Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition, i.e. in April, 1963, under Clause (a) of sub -section (4) of Section of the Act, as being Rs. 190/ - per marla. Consequently, it was held that all the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation at that rate. The claim for solatium and interest on the amount awarded was disallowed on the ground that "I am of the view that the petitioners cannot re -open this point after a judgment against them has been given by the Hon'ble Single Judge. On the same reasoning I do not want to award any interest to the petitioners on the compensation which is liable to be enhanced at the market value which I have fixed." Feeling aggrieved against this order of the District Judge, acting as Arbitrator under the Act, the State has filed the said appeals; where as the claimants have filed the cross -objections. 4. The learned counsel for the State contended that the land was only agricultural land, and, therefore, the Arbitrator has wrongly allowed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 190/ - per Marla, taking into consideration that the acquired land was such which could be used for purposes other than agriculture. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and going through the evidence, I do not find any force in the appeals filed by the State. Apart from the other evidence, in the two notifications issued in the years 1963 and 1954, the land in dispute was requisitioned by the State Government for the constitution of cheap tenements near the Industrial Area of Jullundur. This itself is sufficient to hold that the acquired land had the potentiality (sic) being used for purposes other than agriculture and it has been rightly held so by the Arbitrator.;