- (1.) In all these 5 cases, the only point raised before me is that the reference Court relied on a determination of compensation by the High Court as regards the land acquired in the same village through a notification issued on 13.12.1982. The notification which acquired the lands in the instant cases was issued on 09.06.1987. Taking note of the fact that the acquisition had been in relation to property which came through a subsequent notification, the reference Court provided for a 12% increase for each year as the possible escalation of prices that could have taken place over a period of time.
(2.) As regards the valuation of the property to a method of reasoning adopted by the reference Court providing for a 12% per annum increase on the ground that the escalation would have been not less than 12% per annum, it is contested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the grounds, inter alia, that between the years 1980 to 1987 the State was in the grips of terrorism and value of properties had been literally going down. The counsel would want judicial notice of the fact that during the period of terrorism the prices could not have on the rise at 12% per annum. He would cite to me a property sold in the same village in the year 1986 under Ex.R1 on 25.02.1986 in respect of 3 bigha 19 biswas of land for '12,000/- which worked out to a rate less than '15,000/- per acre. This sale deed was rejected by the reference Court principally on the ground that the value was even less than the value assessed by the Collector and, therefore, the said value could not be taken. The further reasoning adopted was that with reference to Ex.R2, which was a sketch, the property which had been dealt with under Ex.R1 was far away from the property which was acquired and, therefore, could not be relied on. The learned counsel appearing for the State would argue that while the fact that it was not in the immediate proximity of the acquired land would obtain relevance, the rejection on the ground that the price was even less than the amount assessed by the Collector was wholly irrelevant. The counsel would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another, 2010 AIR(SC) 170 where it has been held that a bar under Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act to award less amount than what was awarded by the Collector would have no relevance in regard to determination of the market value as contrasted from the award of compensation itself. The counsel would, therefore, urge that Ex.R1 could not have been eschewed, as wholly irrelevant but must have been taken with rest of other circumstances together that the provision for 12% increase every year was unacceptable, in a situation, where there was sure evidence of the fact that during the relevant period of consideration, the prices had even tumbled in relation to the property in the same village.
(3.) While I can take notice of the fact that the State of Punjab had serious incidence of terrorism during that period, I have not scientific data to register what exactly was the standard of fall in prices during the relevant time. Such a finding would be possible only if there was a clear-cut evidence as regards the same. One thing becomes clear that the property which had been acquired through a notification issued in the year 1982 for which the valuation had been assessed by the High Court at '47,500/- and '23,750/- for chahi and barani lands were actually situated in the immediate proximity to the property which was subsequently notified and which was subject of acquisition in the instant cases. Therefore, any determination of price could not have been less than the value determined by the High Court for the proximate lands acquired through notification of the year 1982. Real estate value is never known to have fallen steeply except during the years of great depression of 1930s. I am prepared to go as far as to state that the political situation in Punjab had a dampening effect but I will not completely rule out inflation for value of real estate even in Punjab. In my view, if any approximation could be made to the possible value of the property, I would subject it to a modification providing for 9% per annum increase instead of 12% per annum for 55 months from the date 13.12.1982 to 09.06.1987. This may not be a rule of thumb to be applied to every other case but in this case it is surely indicated through evidence brought through Ex.R1 that there had been a steep fall in the price of the property in the same village. The reference Court itself has considered the fact that it was not in the immediate proximity of the property acquired but there is no clear evidence whether the type and character of the property itself was so different that the price did not record a low amount for the year 1986 but it was only on account of political conditions in Punjab. If the value of the property is, therefore, taken as '47,500/- per acre in the manner determined by the High Court for a similar property in the year 1982, the increase that must be worked out @ 9% would allow for an increase to an extent of '19,593.75 which will result in a valuation of the property at '67,093.75 which is round off to '67,100/- per acre for chahi land and as regards the barani properties against the valuation of '23,750/- per acre as determined by the High Court, the increase must mean '9,800/- per acre which would work out to '33,550/- per acre for barani land. The valuation of the property made by the reference Court would stand modified and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to the above extent. The landowners would also be entitled to the benefits relating to interest and solatium as per the Land Acquisition Act of 1984, as amended.;