Naresh Chander Jain, J. - (1.) THIS judgment of mine shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 456 and 130 of 1982, the former filed by the Appellant -landowner, whereas, the latter has been filed by the State of Punjab. Since both the appeals arise out of the common Award of the District Judge, Rupnagar, they are being disposed of together by this judgment.
(2.) IN pursuance of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 23.12.1975 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), the Punjab State acquired land measuring 8.52 acres situated in the area of village Madanpur for the setting up of residential urban estate at S.A.S Nagar District Rupnagar. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land situated within 'Lal Lakir' at Rs. 7/ - per square yard and for the land situated in between 'Lal Lakir and Phirni' the same was evaluated at Rs. 28,000/ - per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act. the District Judge by his Award dated 25.9 1981 under challenge before this Court, had determined the market value of the entire land at Rs. 48000/ - per acre. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn my pointed attention to an Award given by this Court in R.F.A. No. 804 of 1974 - State of Punjab v. Puran etc. R.F.A. No. 804 of 1974 decided on May 12, 1979 wherein a Division Bench of this Court determined the market value of the acquired land in village Madanpur, Mataur etc at a sum of Rs. 37000/ - per acre. In the decided case this Court was determining the market value of the acquired land which was situated within the 'Phirni' of villages Madanpur, Mataur etc. In the present case the market value of the acquired land which is situated in 'Lal Lakir and Phirni' has been determined. On the above mentioned premises, the learned Counsel proceeds to argue that the land situated in 'Lal Lakir' cannot be said to be inferior to the land situated within the 'Phirni'. It has further been argued by the counsel that the notification in the decided case having been issued on 15.1.1970 and in the present case it having been issued almost six years later, he is entitled to the increase in view of price rise during all these years.
(3.) THERE is considerable force in the submissions of the counsel. The land in the present case as well as in the decided case is situated in Madanpur. As regards the land in the 'Lal Lakir' the same has been evaluated at a higher rate. If the land in the 'Phirni' can be evaluated at Rs. 37000/ - per acre in the decided case, there is no reason for this Court to fix a lesser amount of compensation for the land situated in 'Lal Lakir'. In fact, the Additional District Judge has fixed the market value at a flat rate The learned Counsel is also right that necessary premium in price rise has to given. It has been held by M.S. Liberhan, J. in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab (1988 -2) 94 P.L.R. 190 that the intention of the Legislature to give the increase by 12 per cent per annum in view of price rise can well be inferred. While following the ratio laid down in Inder Singh's case (supra) and by giving a raise of 72 per cent in the amount of compensation in view of price rise during the period of six years. I hereby determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 63640/ - per acre.;