- (1.) This judgment will dispose of R.F. As. Nos. 1704, 2131, 2181 of 1984 and R.F.A.No. 55 of 1985, as these arises out of the same award of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, and rest upon the same evidence.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that in pursuance of notification published on 25th February, 1981, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), some land including the land of the appellants in the present appeals, falling in the revenue estate of village Raili, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, was acquired for the Mukerian Hydel Channel Project by the State of Punjab. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 13th August,1981, awarded compensation of the acquired land as under :- (1) Barani land... Rs. 12743.36 P. per Acre (2) Banjar Qadim land... Rs. 6371.68 P. per Acre Plus 3 per cent of the value thus calculated. The Land Acquisition Collector also awarded Rs. 48850/- as compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land of Mst. Pritam Devi, who has preferred R.F.A. No. 1704 of 1984. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of their acquired land and trees etc., all the landowners successfully sought references under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. All these references were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide his award dated 29th March, 1984. On the basis of an earlier award relating to the acquired land of the adjoining village Bhallowal, copy Exhibit A. 20 dated 24th March, 1983 of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, the compensation of the land was enhanced as under :- (1) Barani... Rs. 21080/- per Acre. (2) Banjar Qadim... Rs. 10540/- per Acre. The compensation of the trees growing on the acquired land was not enhanced. The claimants were also held entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value of the acquired land. They were also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation of their land from the date of their dispossession. Still being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge, all the claimants have come up in this court by filing these appeals.
(3.) Vide detailed order dated 3rd November, 1988, this Court allowed the application for additional evidence in order to produce sale-deed, Exhibit AA/1, corresponding to mutation P.16 on the file, as in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Pohu and another, 1986 RRR 228(P&H) rendering the certified copies of mutations as inadmissible in evidence for assessing the terms and conditions of the relevant sale transactions.;