State of Punjab v. Pritam Singh Etc. Etc.

195 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Having seen the details of the facts and circumstances in these appeals we do not think that there is any substance for interference. A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was publish­ ed acquiring 25 aGres and odd for public purpose, namely, for estab­ lishment of grain market. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award B dated February 18, 1972 awarded compensation at varying rates between Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 10,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge, in his award and decree dated May 3, 1976, enhanced compensation varying between Rs. 90.000 and Rs. 30,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court awarded on flat rate of Rs. 70,220 per acre. Being dissatisfied with C it, these appeals have been filed. We have seen the judgment of the High Court. Practically, for large extent of land enhancement made by the Additional District Judge was reduced from Rs. 90,000, Rs. 85,000, Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 75,000 per acre to Rs. 70,220 per acre. The only question is of the lands for which Rs. 65,000 D and Rs. 35,000 were awarded, which were enhanced to Rs. 70,220. As to the first part namely, compensation of Rs. 65,000 per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 70,000, there is not much of difference. Though we find there is substantial difference for the second category, there is no material on record showing detail of lands covered by this part of the order. So, it. E is difficult for this Court to decide whether interference with this part of the order of the High Court is called for. Under these circumstances, the appeals are dismissed but without costs. T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.