Pathankot Landowners Keep ₹1,16,200-Per-Marla Compensation As P&H HC Rejects Improvement Trust’s Challenge

The matters arose from acquisition of 13.56 acres in Village Pathankot under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922.

Notifications under Sections 36 and 41 of that Act were issued in 2010 and 2011.

The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at ₹45,00,000 per acre on 26.07.2011; on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Tribunal enhanced compensation to ₹1,16,200 per marla on 13.03.2023.

The Trust challenged the valuation, relying on two sale deeds that it had not produced before the Tribunal.

The landowners opposed interference, pointing to the Tribunal’s deductions for construction and development.

In three connected petitions, landowners separately challenged compensation assessed for trees and structures.

Sections 36 and 41 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 correspond, respectively, to Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the Collector’s award was made under the 1894 Act, and the landowners’ claims were referred under Section 18 of that Act.

In assessing market value, the Court referred to the Supreme Court-approved approach of allowing escalation of 15% per annum for urban land and deductions of 20% to 70% for development, while recognising that valuation is not governed by a rigid formula and involves estimation.

The Court also considered deductions for construction in evaluating the Tribunal’s use of sale instances relating to shops.

The Tribunal had relied on sale deeds relating to shops in the market because the Trust had not produced contrary evidence before it, and had applied deductions of 50% for construction and 65% for development.

The High Court found those deductions justified.

Although the Trust later relied on a 2008 sale deed showing a rate of ₹50,000 per marla, it offered no plausible reason for not producing the deeds before the Tribunal; in any event, applying 15% annual escalation to the 2008 rate meant the Tribunal’s valuation was not unjustified.

The Court also found no basis to disturb the compensation awarded for trees and structures.

As to possession, it noted that a civil court was seized of the dispute over the location of Khasra No. 222 and requested that court to decide the dispute promptly.

It dismissed CWP-6622-2023, CWP-6650-2023 and CWP-6866-2023, finding no substance in the claims concerning compensation for trees and structures.

It requested the Civil Court at Pathankot to determine the location dispute concerning the acquired land within three months, without granting adjournments.

Pending applications were also disposed of.