- (1.) All the appeals are at the instance of the land owners seeking for enhancement of compensation for property acquired for setting up a residential urban estate in the area of Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. The total extent of property that was acquired was 392 kanals 12 marlas situate in the revenue limits of village Alladad Chak and 145 kanals 3 marlas situate in the revenue limits of village Machhi Joa. The total extent, therefore, was 537 kanals 15 marlas. The notification had been issued on 11.08.2000. The District Collector had made the award on 05.12.2001 determining of compensation at Rs. 6 lacs per acre upto 7 karams depth for property in Sultanpur Lodhi adjoining the Sultanpur Lodhi-Talwandi Chaudharian main road, Rs. 5 lacs per acre for land upto 7 karams depth on link road to Machhi Joa and Rs. 4.5 lacs for the remaining land. On a reference made to the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala for enhancement under Section 18, the Additional District Judge dismissed all the petitions holding that assessment made by the Collector had been just and that there was no scope for modification.
(2.) There had been substantial documents placed both on the side of the land owners as well by the State. The District Judge had tabulated the valuations of properties brought through the sale deeds relied on by the petitioners in paragraph 10 of the award and the State's reliance on documents have been brought through in tabulation made in para 13. For the valuation given by the land owners, the values hovered between Rs. 8.20 lacs per acre to Rs. 80 lacs per acre. The highest valuation reflected through PA was a document dated 04.05.2001 in respect of 2 marlas of land in Machhi Joa for Rs. 1 lac. A3 was in respect of 5 marlas of land on 03.05.2001 was again for Rs. 1 lac, which reckoned to Rs. 32 lacs per acre. These documents were justifiably rejected since they were not only small parcels of land but also on account of the fact that there were post-notification sales and therefore, could not be relied on unless there were no documents available in respect of properties before notification. As regards the properties covered under Ex.P11 and P12, they were in respect of transactions prior to the notification namely on 19.03.1999 and 14.09.1994 respectively but they were again for insignificantly small extents of properties of 1 kanal under Ex.P11 and 1 marla under Ex.P12. The average value of the property as per these two transactions were Rs. 8.20 lacs. These two documents are not too much at variance if we consider also Ex.P25, which was of the reference to 16 kanals of land for Rs. 16.40 lacs, which worked out to Rs. 8.20 lacs per acre. As against this, the documents relied on by the State Ex.R6 to R10 were for the relevant period prior to notification. I am not making a reference about them since no attempt at all had been made by the State to locate the properties covered through the sale deeds to the site plan filed by the parties. Ex.R11 to R14 were properties in Machhi Joa and the valuation was less than the valuation given through Ex.P25.
(3.) The proposition of law is laid down through several decisions and particularly with reference to decision in Anjani Molu Desai Vs. State of Goa, 2010 13 SCC 710 where the Supreme Court held that in cases of several exemplars, usually highest exemplars should be considered and where the several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, it shall be safe to take average of such valuation. The Supreme Court, however, cautioned that the principle of averaging will not be resorted to where the sale prices are markedly different. As a matter of fact, the Court determines what is just compensation and it has also been held in Sangunthala Vs. Tehsildar (LA), 2010 3 SCC 661 that the Reference Court is not without power to grant compensation what is even more than what is claimed in the petition before the Court.;