Singh Vs. State of Punjab  INSC 189 (18 March 1994)
S. (J) Mohan, S. (J) Kuldip Singh (J)
1994 SCC (4) 67 JT 1994 (2) 700
Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MOHAN, J.- These civil appeals raise
the question of award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondent, State of Punjab issued a notification under Section
4 on October 4, 1978 for acquisition of land measuring
284 kanals and 9 marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Daulatpur, Pathankot.
The public purpose of acquisition was for construction of godowns by the
Central Warehousing Corporation. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs 330 per marla besides solatium at the rate of 15
per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent from November 4, 1978 to the date of actual payment. Not
being satisfied with the same, the appellants preferred application for
references under Section 18 of the Act. On reference the learned Additional
District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs 330 per marla to Rs 700.
such of those claimants like the appellants who had received the amount of
compensation as per the award without any protest, this enhancement was denied.
the appellants preferred Regular First Appeal No. 447 of 1982 to the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana. The learned Single Judge was of the view that two sale
deeds Exhs. A-6 and R-6 would provide the necessary data. Exh. A-6 dated January 14, 1977 covers 7 marlas of land situated at
a distance of about 50 yards from the suit land. The sale consideration thereunder
was Rs 700. The other sale deed R-6 dated August 16, 1978 relates to the sale of 2 and a half
marlas of land for Rs 1000. The area covered by the sale deed lies at a
distance of just 20 feet from the suit + From the Judgment and Order dated
9-7-1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 447
of 1982 68 land. Based on this, the fixation of Rs 700 per marla was upheld. In
this view, he dismissed the appeal.
only point urged before us in this case is that there is enough evidence to
establish the lands were sold for higher value. If the average of these sale
deeds is worked out the appellant should be entitled to more than Rs 700 per marla.
Even otherwise, on the basis of Exh. A-6 itself, the appellant would be
entitled to Rs 1000 per marla. There is no justification in denying the same.
The High Court has gone wrong in upholding the order of the learned District
Judge under which an average was struck between sale deeds A-6 and R-6. The
appellants cannot be denied the benefit of enhancement in view of the
application under Section 18 of the Act having been filed.
have carefully considered the above submission. The learned First Additional
District Judge in paragraph 14 of his judgment states as follows :
already stated above, instance covered by Exhibit A-6 relied upon by the
applicants and sale transaction covered by mutation Exhibit R-6 are relevant
for making the basis for the assessment of the market value of the acquired
land. Vide Exhibit A-6, the rate per marla comes to Rs 1000 whereas Exhibit R-6
gives the value per marla at Rs 400. Clubbing these two sales together, the
average per marla comes to Rs 700. In my opinion, this could be the appropriate
market value of the acquired land." It was this finding which has been
upheld by the High Court.
regard to the contiguity of these lands the High Court is correct in its valuation.
Besides, the date of notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, is
October 4, 1978 while Exh. R-6 is nearer to it, namely, August 16, 1978, in
comparison to Exh. A-6 dated January 14, 1977.
as the appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of
the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the
award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of
compensation. The District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into
patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants.
we allow the appeals partly and hold that the appellants are entitled to
compensation at the enhanced rate as allowed by the District Judge. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.