R.L.Anand, J - (1.) By this judgment I dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 3647, 3648, 3721 and 3722 to 3733 and 3796 of 1999 as all the appeals have arisen from a judgment dated 14.8.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who, by affirming the award of the Collector, dismissed all the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act).
(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner : The landowners of the land measuring 118.97 acres situated in village Harkishanpura, Tehsil and District Sangrur, filed the claim petitions against the award passed by the Collector on 14.11.1988 against the acquisition of this land. The land was, acquired by the State of Punjab of M/s Indian Acrylics Limited SCO 49-50, Sector 26, Chandigarh for setting up Acrylic Fibres Project. The land was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 15.4.1988 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 21.6.1988. The Collector vide award dated 14.11.1988 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre for the special held of land, attaching the main highway Rs. 50,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs. 40,000/- per acre for banjar land adjoining the chahi land and Rs. 25,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. He also awarded total compensation for structures, fuel, trees, bores, wells and tubewells amounting to Rs. 3,57,241.13 paise. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector and they filed reference under Section 18 of the Act mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Collector, is on the lower side and the price of the land on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was much higher than the one awarded by the Collector. According to the claimants, the acquired land abuts Sangrur-Patiala National Highway and is adjoining the hospital and is having more potential value than the land available in the vicinity.
(3.) Notice of the claim petitions was issued to the respondents who resisted their claim. It was pleaded on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the compensation awarded by the Collector is quite reasonable and more than that can be fetched from the sale of general sellers and general purchasers. It was contested that rate of the land was much higher at the time of acquisition of the land. The passage leading to the fields of the petitioners was not acquired and no separate written statement was filed by respondent No. 3. But during the course of submissions raised before the lower Court, respondent No. 3 adopted the written statement of respondents 1 and 2. Rejoinder was also filed by the landowners. All the claim petitions were consolidated and the Reference Court made the following issues for the disposal of the claim petitions : "1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation. If so, to what amount ? OPP 2. Relief." Parties lead oral and documentary evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Reference Court came to the conclusion that no enhancement is possible and while approving the award of the Collector, dismissed all the claim petitions under Section 18 of the Act. Not satisfied with the award of the Reference Court, the present appeals have been filed.;