- (1.) The batch of appeals is at the instance of the State as well as the landowners, the former seeking for reduction and the latter seeking for enhancement of compensation as determined by the Reference Court. The land acquisition had been with reference to the village Ramgarh Bhudda situated in District Patiala, through a notification issued under Section 4 on 21.03.1988, for the purpose of Bassi Distributory. The landowners relied on two sale deeds and two awards. The sale deeds related to the period 1987-88 in respect of 6 biswas of land for Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- respectively. The Court discarded the sale deeds as irrelevant since they dealt with very small pieces of land as house sites. The State referred to 3 sale deeds R1, R2 and R3 relating to transactions of the years 1985 and 1986 respectively dealing with 8 bighas of land each that worked to about Rs. 28,800/- per acre, the Court found them to be less than the value determined by the Collector and chose to discard the same as well. Of the awards relied on by the petitioner, one related to the Village Powal where the High Court had provided for compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- in respect of acquisition notification issued in the year 1982 and Ex. A5 was an assessment to the land in Mubarkpur in respect of 1986 notification where the valuation had been made for 1 lakh of rupees. The Reference Court had referred to Ex.A5, the award for Mubarkpur as a proper exemplar, having regard to the purpose of acquisition and the proximity of the land to the property acquired.
(2.) The learned counsel for the State would contend that when the sale deeds in respect of the very same village had been produced before the Court, they alone ought to have been taken as appropriate exemplars and could not have relied on a judgment with reference to an adjoining village. The learned counsel for the landowners would contend that the property was situate in the immediate vicinity of Chandigarh and falls within the area notified by the Government as a controlled area. All the properties for which compensations were determined, A4 and A5 also fell within the controlled area notification and the purpose of notification also being the same, the valuation could not have been disparate.
(3.) I have seen through the judgment of this Court while determining the compensation of 1 lakh of rupees for the notification issued in 1984 for Powal village. It has done no more than referring to the Chief Minister's assurance for compensation of 1 lakh of rupees to persons, who were agitating for more compensation as a measure of truce for an adjoining village without any particular reference to the documents filed. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that if A4 judgment itself related to notification of the year 1982 and if the said judgment were to be taken, it ought to have provided for an escalation. The learned counsel would argue that A4 itself related to acquisition through a notification for the year 1982 and if the High Court was providing for Rs. 1,25,000/-, the assessment of compensation for the property acquired subsequently in the year 1988 could not have been even lower. A5 judgment relating to acquisition of land in Mubarkpur was for the same year as regards the notification and the determination of compensation of 1 lakh of rupees alone could not have been appropriate. When there were sale deeds, it would be inappropriate to refer to awards passed in some other village, but if in the scheme of acquisition for a particular purpose of laying a road or a canal in the adjoining villages, the manner of assessment of compensation cannot be very different for that would spell heartache among landowners and would pitch one villager against another with hard feelings. The reference to awards passed earlier were only to ensure that judicial approaches are not seen as casting invidious distinction between one villager to another. If the properties along different villages are subjected to acquisition for the same purpose, the exigency of fair play requires that the assessment of compensation is also reasonably uniform, without gross differences in the valuation. The issue of land acquisition has in some way grown to be political and the recent trends have shown acute resentment in the manner acquisitions are made without appropriately engaging the local persons affected by such acquisition in the proper dialogue and fair play for compensation. Even as I discard the sale deeds, I do so only by what I think is a necessary compulsion to obtain homogeneity in legal approach for determination of valuation. I see certain merit in the arguments that when the Court was taking the valuation of properties with reference to Ex.A5, it could not have discarded the assessment made by the High Court itself for a notification made earlier where the assessment of compensation was Rs. 1,25,000/-. I have already observed that the property in Ramgarh Budda, Powal and Mubarkpur all fall along the periphery villages of Chandigarh through a notification which is a controlled area. The valuation as determined for an acquisition made later could not have been less than even Rs. 1,25,000/-. The learned counsel for the State stoutly contends against this position and presents before me a judgment rendered by this Court in the batch of RFA No.2122 of 1995 title 'The State of Punjab Versus Gurnam Singh, dated 08.12.2008, where the properties in the village Shekhpur Khurd, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, had been assessed for compensation of Rs. 1 lakh per acre for chahi, Rs. 85,800/- for barani and Rs. 71,500/- for gair mumkin, which were also fell within the controlled area. I have verified it with Ex.A6 and find that they fell within the controlled area. More appropriately, the Court that determined the compensation in the said batch of cases could have assessed the compensation having an earlier Division Bench ruling providing for compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-. Considering the fact that even the assessment under A4 was for 1982 notification and that the High Court has provided for Rs. 25,000/- more than what the Chief Minister had offered as compensation for farmers, in my view, it could not have been less. I will opt to follow what is provided under A4 as the minimum than the follow prices determined either in A5 or the judgment referred to before me in RFA No.2122 of 1995. The compensation therefore is raised from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1,25,000/- for chahi land and proportionate reductions for gair mumkin and barani. The compensation shall also be payable with all statutory benefits.;