COLLECTOR L A P W D Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and award given by Additional District Judge, Jammu in Land Acquisition File No.63/L.A. Act of 1978 passed on Oct., 15, 1980. The Collector made a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge about the claim put forward by the respondents before him. The learned Additional District Judge after giving an opportunity to the respective parties to adduce their evidence gave the award by raising the compensation awarded by the Collector to the respondents to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per kanal. It is not disputed that the Collector by award in case No. LA/1316-17 dated Nov.30, 1977 gave an award regarding the acquisition of land measuring 86 kanals and 1 marla in village Bagla, Tehsil Samba, and 26 kanals and 10 marlas in a village Man Sukha Singh and 5 kanals and 3 marlas in village Chak Qadir of Tehsil R. S. Pura, District Jammu. Notice under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued on May 12, 1976 and under S.6, the same was published on June 10, 1976. Simultaneously a notice under S.5-A of the Act was also issued. No objection to the acquisition of the above land was filed under S.5-A of the Act by the interested persons. The Collector after enquiry under S.23 of the Act determined the compensation of the land as follows:- (i) Hail Rs. 900/- per kanal (ii) Mera I and Salaba Rs. 800/- per kanal (iii) Mera II Rs. 700/- per kanal (iv) Banjar Qadim Rs. 300/- per kanal (v) Gair Mumkin Rs. 200/- per kanal The respondents were aggrieved against the said award given by the Collector, hence a reference on their application was made under S.18 of the Act.

(2.) The learned Additional District Judge on the assessment of the evidence produced by the claimants/respondents, Messefa (1) Chain Singh, (2) Hari Singh, (3) Mohd. Ashraf, (4) Chhankar Singh and (5) Gulab Singh were examined on behalf of the respondents. Along with the said witnesses the sale deeds EXPWCS, EXPWMA and EXPWGS have also been placed on record. The learned Additional District Judge after assessing the above-said evidence produced by the respondents assessed the compensation to Rs.4,000/- per kanal and thus the amount, which was awarded by the Collector quoted above was enhanced irrespective of the classification of land to a sum of Rs.4,000/per kanal. Being aggrieved against the said award given by the Additional District Judge, the Collector has come up on this appeal before us challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by him.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned Chief Government Advocate argued before us that the assessment of potentialities by the learned Additional District Judge is based on no principle, and without any foundation the amount of Rs.4,000/- per kanal is arrived at by him, which is arbitrary and excessive. He further submitted that before the Collector, three of the respondents who were present on the spot when the Collector recorded their statements have put forward their claim for a sum of Rs.1,500/- per kanal only and thus the learned Additional District Judge ignoring the admission of the respondents, which should be termed as a limit of the claim put forward in REPLY to notice under S. 9 of the Act, the respondents are not entitled to claim more than that. Having gone through the record and examining the statements taken by the Collector on which great emphasis is laid by the learned Chief Government Advocate, we find that the statements recorded by the Collector are joint and not in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which are liable to be ignored and thus we do not rely on such a statement, which cannot be said to be in any manner an admission in response to notice under S.9 of the Act. Learned Chief Government Advocate was unable to show before us any reply in writing accepting the price of the acquired land by the respondents as Rs.1500/- per kanal. Learned Chief Government Advocate also submitted that the learned Additional District Judge, failed to give a reasoning to arrive at a figure of Rs. 4,000/- per kanal in the villages specially of the land, which was entered as agricultural land at the relevant time, moreover, it is against the principle of S.23 of the Act to take into account the transactions made of the small plots of land, which are relied on by the learned Additional District Judge to assess the compensation at Rs.4.000/- per kanal. In support of his contention, he relied on the authority of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 1560, (Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh), wherein it has been held "Acquisition of large area of land - Determination of Compensation Price paid for small plots of land cannot provide a safe guide or criterion for determining compensation for a large area." It is apparent that the total land acquired in the present case is a large chunk of 117 kanals and 14 marlas, the learned Additional District Judge has not considered this aspect in his award nor there is any discussion over the aspect pointed above. Similar view is held in AIR 1977 SC 580, (Smt. Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab). Learned Chief Government Advocate also tried to persuade us relying on an authority of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 1128, (Dadoo Yogendrenath Singh v. Collector, Seoni). That claim for compensation in pursuance of notice under S.9 of the Act made by the respondents was only limited to Rs.1,500/- per kanal, thus the award of compensation in excess of the claim was held wrong. In this respect we have already made it clear as above that the learned Chief Government Advocate failed to show before us any such claim in response to notice under S.9 of the Act, by which we can bind the respondents not to claim more than Rs. 1,500/- per kanal.