- (1.) The appellant before this Court claiming redetermination of compensation by way of enhancement, finds fault with the vivisection of the property for valuation which was for a single chunk of land. The reference Court awarded compensation of '43,000/- per acre upto 20 karms of land and beyond 20 karms at the rate of '34,000/- per acre. This determination was purportedly on the basis of a judgment of this Court in RFA No.52 of 1984 disposed of by this Court on 02.12.1988. In the said judgment this Court had awarded a compensation of '43,000/- per acre for the land abutting the road and while determining compensation for "other properties", the Court had determined a compensation of '34,000/- per acre.
(2.) The learned counsel argues that when all the property which was acquired was abutting the main road, the valuation must have been in relation to the whole property on such basis and the Court cannot provide for valuation at a particular rate adjoining the road upto 20 karms and provide for a less valuation beyond the said extent thereof. Learned counsel also refers to a decision of this Court in Nachhatar Singh v. State of Punjab and others in RFA No.2591 of 2004 rendered on 21.02.2011 to contend that while determining compensation for an acquired land adjoining the main road the Court had allowed for a determination of the rate for at least 2 acres adjoining the main road. I am not prepared to see this judgment as laying down as invoilable principle that property adjoining to 2 acres must always be provided with same valuation. However, I still will not allow for a chunk of property adjoining the road to be considered for differential valuation by arbitrarily splitting the value at '43,000/- per acre adjoining to road upto 20 karms and other portion beyond 20 karms at the rate of '34,000/- per acre. So long as the property was in a single block of 24 kanals 17 marlas, the entire extent of property must have been valued at the same rate. This is particularly in view of the appellant s property adjoining the road was part of 55 acres of land which was acquired under the same notification where there were several other persons whose property was farther off from the main road and persons who owned property away from the road could not have been in a better position from the persons who owned the property on the main road. This property must have been taken to possess a single valuation having regard to the relatively small extent of 25 kanals 17 marlas.
(3.) The award of the reference Court is modified and the valuation of the entire extent of property, namely, 24 kanals 17 marlas shall be provided a single valuation at the rate of '43,000/- per acre. The appellant is also entitled to statutory benefits relating to solatium as per the Pre Amendment Act, 1984.;