JAI KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-1990-4-79
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 09,1990

JAI KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This judgment will dispose of RFA Nos. 466 to 480, 503, 550, 600, 630 to 650, 688 to 696, 903, 1518 to 1525, 1527 to 1531, 1533 to 1536 to 1557, 1559 to 1560, 1562, 1564 to 1566, 1568 to 1570, 1572 to 1575, 1577, 1579 to 1589, 1587 to 1591, 1593 to 1598, and 1715 arising out of the same award of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, fixing compensation for the land acquired. Some of the appeals have been filed sic.
(2.) 115 Acres 5 Kanals 14 Marlas of land of village Kotkapura was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for establishment of New Mandi Township, Kotkapura. Notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued on May 5, 1982. Notice under section 6 of the Act was issued on January 19, 1984. The Collector announced the Award on February 22, 1984, fixing market value of the acquired land, adopting the belt system. For, Block 'A' the value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre; for Block 'B' at the rate of Rs. 52,00/- per acre and for Block 'C' at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. They moved different references under Section 18 of the Act which were ultimately consolidated and evidence was recorded in Land Acquisition Case No. 43 of 1985 (Lakhbir Singh v. State of Punjab). The Additional District Judge, faridkot, disposed of all the references by the judgment date November 20, 1987,assessing the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,01,000/- per acre. To some of the claimants, compensation was also allowed for the super structure. The claimants were also allowed solatium and interest under the provisions of the Act as amended in 1984. Against the aforesaid judgment, in all 124 appeals have been filed; 55 appeals have been filed by the claimants and 69 appeals have been filed by the State, which are being disposed of by this judgment.
(3.) The District Judge, after referring to the evidence produced in the case, held that the acquired land had great potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. In para 8 of the judgment, he observed as under:- "The acquired land is within the municipal limits of Kotkapura as is evident from the copy of the notification Ex. A - 106. It is evident from the statement of Banwari Lal Halqa Patwari (AW 110 that the site plan Ex. A. 10 was prepared by him correctly according to the aks shajra wherein the petrol pump has been shown in there, bus stand has been shown in orange colour whereas the abadi has been shown in green colour. The acquired land has been marked ABCD in Ex. A. 10 and the same is at the junction of two roads, viz, Kotkapura-Bhatinda road and Kotkapura Moga road; whereas, there is a kacha passage on the third side. There are shops on both sides of Kotkapura-Bhatinda road Kotkapura-Moga road besides the F.C.I godowns as shown in green colour, Marked Z - 1, in Ex. A. 10 Mukhtiar Singh Patwari, Colonisation Department who has been examined as RW1 by the respondent produced aks shajra-Ex.R.1. (In cross-examination, he has admitted that the acquired land is situate at the junction of the roads shown as Kotkapura-Moga road and Kotkapura-Bhatinda road and on the third side there is passage. The width of the passage is 3 Karams. There is a cinema on Bhatindar roadbesides a large number of buildings adjoining the acquired land. Besides this, there are shops on the Kotkapura-Moga and Kotkapura-Bhatinda road and the shops are situate on both sides of the roads. According to him, there were shops in the acquired land at the time of the acquisition. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the acquired land has a great potential and its favourable situation is not seriously disputed inasmuch as the said land can be used as residential sites as well as for commercial and residential purposes." The aforesaid position is not disputed on behalf of the State. That being the position, I need not refer to the evidence on the subject and the finding aforesaid is adopted.;


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