RFA1199 of 1993 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 1199 of 1993 Decided on November 26,2008. The State of Punjab --- Appellant vs. Nirmal Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. Present: Mr.Vivek Chauhan,A.A.G, Punjab, for the appellant None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of 15 appeals i.e. R.F.A. Nos. 1199,1198 of 1993, 585 of 1996, 59 of 1994, 3628, 3627, 3626, 3625, 1197, 1196, 1195,1194,1193,1192 and 1191 of 1993 filed by the State of Punjab against the award of the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala, dated 30.10.1992, as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are, however, taken from RFA No. 1199 of 1993. Land measuring 5.15 acres was sought to be acquired in village Said Kheri Hadbast No.72, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 14.3.1988, for a public purpose, namely for the RFA1199 of 1993 2 construction of Said Kheri Minor. It was followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.3.1988 and published in the Punjab Govt. Gazette dated 30.3.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.366/P/SYL dated 22.4.1989, determined the compensation by classifying the land into two categories. Objections under Sections 18 of the Act, were filed by the landowners/claimants against the award of the Collector in which it was alleged that the compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre was very meagre because acquired land had a high potentiality as it used to yield three crops in a year and could be used for building and commercial purpose. It was alleged that the remaining land has been divided into two parts for which the claimants be granted severance charges @ Rs. 50,000/-. The State of Punjab denied the claim for higher compensation and asserted that the award of the Collector is just and fair. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The claimants examined Balwinder Singh Patwari Halqa of village Said Kheri as AW-1, who deposed that the land in question was acquired for establishing Mandi and the quality of the land for the SYL and Mandi is the same. This witness proved the sketch Ex.P-1 but during the cross examination, he stated that the acquired land falls on the other side of the village whereas the Mandi has been established towards Rajpura side. Hira Singh appeared as AW-2 and deposed that their village is situated at a distance of half kilometer from Rajpura town and their land has been acquired for Rajpura Mandi. He also stated that quality of the acquired land for Mandi and SYL is the same. The claimants have placed reliance upon two RFA1199 of 1993 3 judgments Exs. A-1 and A-2 delivered in land reference cases with regard to land situated in village Neelpur and Said Kheri. On the other hand, respondents examined Sham Lal Patwari as RW-1 and also placed reliance upon documents Exs. R-1 to R-6. After considering the entire evidence on record while relying upon judgment Ex.A11, the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala, vide order dated 30.10.1992 determined the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.60,000/- per acre for the remaining land of all types. Mr.Vivek Chauhan, learned, A.A.G,Punjab while appearing for the appellants has argued that the learned Reference Court had committed an error while relying upon judgment Ex. A-1. He submitted that villages Neelpur and Said Kheri are at a considerable distance, as such the value of the land of village Neelpur cannot be equated with that of village Said Kheri. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record with his assistance. The land of two villages namely, Neelpur and Said Kheri was acquired with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 2.5.1980 for the public purpose, namely for establishing grain market on an area of 40 kanals 5 marlas. The land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 17.8.1986 and assessed the market value of the acquired land of village Neelpur up to 100 meter width along the Rajpura-Patiala road for all kind of land except Gair-Mumkin Khade @ Rs.60,000/- per acre and for the remaining land @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for Chahi, and @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre for Barani. in respect of land of RFA1199 of 1993 4 village Said Kheri, Chahi land was assessed @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre, Barani @ Rs.20,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge, Patiala, vide his award dated 29.7.1988 (Ex.A- 1) re-determined the compensation @ Rs. 1,70,000/- per acre in respect of the land abutting on Rajpura-Patiala road up to a depth of 100 meters for all kinds of land of village Neelpur and in respect of remaining land of village Neelpur, the compensation was assessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for their remaining land of every type. The rate of compensation in respect of acquired land in village Said Kheri was assessed @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for all kinds of the remaining land. In view of the fact that value of land in village Neelpur and Said Kheri has been differently assessed by learned District Judge, Patiala vide his award Ex. A-1, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is totally misconceived that the learned Reference Court has erred in relying upon Ex. A-1 for the purpose of determining the compensation in respect of the land of village Said Kheri. In my view, the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon Ex. A-1 so far as the compensation of village Said Kheri is concerned and determined the compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.60,000/- per acre for all other remaining lands. Thus, it cannot be said that the compensation of village Said Kheri has been awarded by the learned Reference Court while taking into account the compensation determined in the case of village Neelpur. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in RFA1199 of 1993 5 these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. November 26,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge