R.F.A. No. 2764 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2764 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Attar Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2764 and 2765 of 1986, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 16.11.1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire land in village Gurgaon for residential purposes. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed compensation @ ` 17/- per square yard. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 33.50 per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that for the acquisition of land carried out vide notification dated 19.5.1979 in the R.F.A. No. 2764 of 1986 [2] same area, this court had awarded ` 35/- per square yard as compensation. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 16.11.1977. As there was nothing on record to show that prices of the land had increased in the meantime, the court should not have applied any cut while assessing compensation @ ` 33.50 per square yard, rather, the land owners should also have been granted ` 35/- per square yard as compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there being difference of 1-1/2 years between the two acquisitions, the learned court below had applied a reasonable cut of merely ` 1.50 per square yard for the time gap, which cannot be said to be unreasonable, considering the fact that Gurgaon had started developing at that time. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that while assessing compensation the learned court below had placed reliance upon the valuation of the land by this court @ ` 35/- per square yard pertaining to the land of the same area, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.5.1979. Notification in the present case having been issued ` 1-1/2 years prior prior in time, i.e., 16.11.1977, cut of ` 1.50 per square yard cannot be said to be unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 19.12.2011 mk