CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2009
(@ SLP(C) No.5678 of 2007)
C.A.NOs.6441-6470 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 2769-2798 of 2008
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals by special leave arise out of
land acquisition proceedings by which large area of
land, namely, in 4 villages Gopalpur, Nusi, Nangli
Viran and Lidhran was sought to be acquired in
Jalandhar in the State of Punjab by a Notification
dated 20th of May, 1983 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”) for the public purpose of setting up of a
Government Engineering College. The Land
Acquisition Collector, by an award dated 7th of March,
1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land
at the rate of Rs. 53,560/- per acre in respect of the
Chahi land, Barani land at the rate of Rs. 28,500/- per acre
and Banjar kadim at the rate of Rs. 14,250/- per acre. The
appellants, who are the land owners/claimants, were dissatisfied
with the award and filed reference cases under Section 18 of the
Act. The Reference Court determined the market value of the
acquired land up to a depth of 100 karams situated on the G.T.
Road at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre and the market value of
the remaining land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per
acre. With this determination, the Reference Court also held that
the land owners/claimants were also entitled to other statutory
benefits as admissible to them in law.
Feeling aggrieved by this determination of the Reference
Court made under Section 18 of the Act, appeals were filed before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which, by the impugned
Judgment, were allowed in part, holding that the market value of
the entire acquired land must be assessed at the rate of Rs.
1,60,000/- per acre inter alia on a finding that when the acquired
land was having such potential, then adopting of Belting System
and classifying the land into two categories i.e. one, upto the depth
of 100 karams on the G.T. Road and the remaining land beyond
that depth, was not at all justified.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and
order of the High Court, these Special Leave Petitions have been
filed by the land owners/claimants, and on the other hand, the State
of Punjab were aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court
also filed Special Leave Petitions, which on grant of leave, were
heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
claimants/appellants and the learned counsel for the
Respondent/State of Punjab. We have also examined the Judgment
of the High Court as well as the order of the Reference Court and
other materials on record, including the oral and documentary
evidence. The only question that was agitated before us by the
learned counsel for the claimants/appellants was in respect of the
rejection of the application for acceptance of additional evidence
filed by the claimants/appellants. It appears that the application for
acceptance of additional evidence was filed by the
claimants/appellants to admit the Aks Shajra by way of additional
evidence. While dealing with the application for acceptance of
additional evidence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
claimants/appellants had sought to produce Aks Shajra as an
additional evidence in the said appeal. While dealing with this
aspect of the matter, the High Court observed as follows :-
“Dealing with the question of additional evidence,
at the first instance, it must be noticed that the
perusal of the aforesaid Aks Shajra clearly shows
that the land of Chara Mandi is at quite distance
from the present acquired land. There are two
canals intervening in between the land acquired
for the Chara Mandi and the present acquired
land. The land of Chara Mandi is also shown to
be on an intersection of G.T. Road and
Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur Road. The present
acquired land is not only at quite a distance from
the land of Chara Mandi but also cannot be held
to be comparable. A perusal of Aks Shajra further
shows that the adjacent area to the acquired land
of Chara Mandi was covered with factories and
houses. A 74.9 acres Transport Nagar Scheme by
Improvement Trust Jalandhar was in existence.
Industrial Focal Point was also situated nearby.
A further perusal of the judgment rendered in
Mukesh Kumar’s case (supra) shows that the
aforesaid land for Chara Mandi was situated
within the limits of Jalandhar Municipal
Corporation. All these factors show that the land
of Chara Mandi is neither comparable nor the
assessment of the market value of the aforesaid
land is relevant for assessment of the market
value in the present appeals. Consequently, I do
not find any merit in the prayer made by the
appellants to allow the present application for
additional evidence. Thus, the application filed by
the appellants for additional evidence is
disallowed.”
In the impugned Judgment itself, the High Court had taken
into consideration the application for acceptance of additional
evidence and also considered the case of Mukesh Kumar vs.
Collector [1987 (2) PLR 370] and on a comparison of the facts in
Mukesh Kumar’s case (supra) and the present appeals, came to a
finding that the facts of Mukesh Kumar’s case were totally
different from the facts involved in the present case. After
considering the facts on which Mukesh Kumar’s case was based,
the High Court, in the impugned order, came to the conclusion that
the land of Chara Mandi was neither comparable nor the
assessment of the market value of the acquired lands was relevant
for the assessment of the market value in the present appeals.
Therefore, we are of the view that neither the decision in Mukesh
Kumar’s case nor the facts of the present appeals were similar to
that of the same. Hence, we do not find any reason to hold that
any enhancement would be possible on the basis of the documents
produced by the parties before us.
For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the clear opinion that the
High Court has rightly rejected the application for acceptance of
additional evidence although in its judgment it discussed the effect
of Aks Shajra and concluded that such a document which is sought
to be produced is not comparable with the facts of present appeal.
No other submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order in these appeals. Accordingly,
these appeals are dismissed with a direction that the compensation
awarded by the High Court shall be paid to the
claimants/appellants within two months from this date.
Accordingly, the appeals of the claimants/appellants are
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
In so far as the appeals of the State of Punjab are concerned,
in view of the discussions made hereinabove and in view of the
fact that the learned counsel for the respondents also could not
satisfy us that the enhancement made by the High Court was in any
way, irregular, illegal or arbitrary, we are of the view that the
appeals filed by the State of Punjab have no merit also and
accordingly, the said appeals are also dismissed.
We find from the record that at the time of issuance of notice
in the Special Leave Petition Nos. 2769-2798 of 2008 preferred by
the State of Punjab, the State of Punjab was directed to deposit a
sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs and such cost is now lying with the
Registry of this Court. Since we have condoned the delay in filing
the appeals of the State of Punjab, we direct that the
claimants/respondents should be allowed to withdraw the costs
deposited with the Registry of this Court.
With the aforesaid directions, these appeals stand dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
…J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
[R.M.Lodha]