P L D 1982 Supreme Court 100 (PLP)

KARAM ELAHBt3 CHAUHAN, J.‑The WAPDA acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), (hereinafter called the Act) on 3‑5‑1967, land of the petitioners/appellants comprised of Khasra Nos. 1605, 1606, 1608 and 1610.

2. In the instant case we are concerned with two Khasra numbers namely 1608 and 1610, measuring 3 kanals and 6 marlas only. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his Award No. 9, dated 4‑4‑1970 assessed the afore said ‑two fields as "Maira".

3. The petitioners/appellants took the matter to the civil Court‑(of Additional District Judge)‑under section 18 of the Act. who vide his judgment and decree dated 1‑9‑1971, held the fields aforesaid as Chahl and assessed them as such at the rate of Rs. 2,70U per kanal plus 15 % acquisition charges and 8 % interest from the date of taking over of the possession of the land as elaborated in his judgment.

4. The WAPDA filed an appeal being R. F. A. 5/72 which was accepted by the High Court on 4‑6‑1973, who reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge and restored the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 4‑4‑1970.

5. The petitioners/appellants have come up in appeal against the aforesaid order of the High Court by special leave which was granted on 14‑12‑1973, to consider as to whether the order of the High Court on the subject suffered from misreading of any evidence regarding the preparation and entries of the relevant Khasra Girdawaries or Jamabandies.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is established on record that in the Jamabandi for the period 1966‑67 the nature of the precise land in dispute herein is described as Chahi. This entry will carry a presumption of correctness. However, apart from that, another fact which needs attention is, that the rest of the land which the petitioners/appellants owned, as already mentioned, was comprised of Khasra No. 1605 and 1606 and had been treated and un disputedly (before us) is Chahi, and in fact in Khasra No. 1605 there existed a well in which petitioners/appellants had a share and which well irrigated the aforesaid two fields namely 1605 and 1606. The presently disputed fields are adjacent to those fields, and in the context hereinbefore explained, possessed a potential of a Chahi land or becoming a Chahl land as the Jamabandi entries hereinbefore mentioned showed. The High Court failed to take notice of this aspect of the case which has led to miscarriage of justice. It is well settled that, if for example, there is an agricultural land quite near the boundaries of a town, its potential value for building purposes cannot be lost sight of. On the same principle, in a case of the present type, if an area is situated quite near a well and though it is shown in Khasra Girdawari as Maira, its potential as a Chahi land cannot B be ignored especially when other land of the sam e owners, it is in evidence,was converted into Chahi by them with the help of the aforesaid well, an also because apparently there was no physical hurdle for that type a development of the land in dispute herein.

7. The result is that the present appeal is accepted and the order of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Additional District Judge dated 1‑9‑1971 is hereby restored with costs throughout. Appeal accepted,