RFA No. 2409 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2409 of 1990 Decided on : 25.8.2008 Union of India and another ....Appellant(s) VERSUS Puran Singh etc. ....Respondent (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel for UOI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This judgement shall dispose of 12 cases i.e. RFA Nos. 2409 to 2414, 2426 to 2431 of 1990 as the facts and law are common. Land measuring 262 kanals 16 marlas with trees standing thereon in the revenue estate of Village Ladho Chak, H.B No. 329, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short the 'Act') dated 21.11.83 for the public purpose namely for the construction of residential quarters (accommodation) for married personnel of the General Reserve Engineering Force and for the staff of Defence Accounts Department of Pathankot. This notification was followed by declaration under Section 6 dated 10th July, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot vide his award no. 1/85 dated 31.5.1985 compensated the land owners at the rate of Rs. 14000/- per acre. The land owners, however, filed objections under Section 18 which were referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. It was claimed by the land owners that the acquired land adjoins the boundaries of municipal limits of city Pathankot towards Nalwa bridge and is surrounded by abadi of village Ladho Chak and Dhira falling in the revenue estate of Daulatpur which adjoins the boundaries of Ladho Chak. It was further claimed that acquired land has potentiality to be developed as RFA No. 2409 of 1990 2 residential colony, godown and commercial establishments. The claimants had relied upon previous award dated 23.10.81 of the same village where the acquisition had taken place in the year 1972 and compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 400/- per marla. Land owners had claimed an amount of Rs.3000/- per marla. The respondent contested the reference denying the assertions of the land owners. Both the parties led evidence. The land owners examined Gian Chand Patwari AW1, Roop Lal Building Inspector AW2, Baldev Singh Patwari, AW3 and Puran Singh AW7. On the contrary, only one witness was examined by the respondent as RW1 Ram Nath Patwari. The Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide his award dated 3rd May, 1990 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 804/- per marla and gave an increase of 204 % for the fruit bearing trees. In the present case, however, the appellants Union of India has challenged the assessment of compensation in respect of the land. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Senior Standing counsel for the Union of India has raised only one argument that as per the sale deed Ex. R.2 which pertains to the same revenue estate of Ladho Chak executed on 23.10.79 for an area of 0 kanal 17 Marla sale consideration was Rs. 59/- per marla whereas the amount of compensation in the year 1983 has been awarded by the Court below at the rate of Rs. 804/- per marla. It was thus argued that the compensation is highly excessive and should be reduced. But so far as Ex. R.2 is concerned it cannot be taken into consideration simply for the reason that the amount of Rs. 59/- per marla is much lower than the amount that has been awarded by the Collector. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. However, after perusal of the entire judgement, I have found that learned Court below had relied upon a previous award Ex. A14 pertaining to the notification dated 19.8.83 vide which compensation has been determined at the rate of Rs.300/- per marla as the Court had found that the location and advantage of the land is more akin to the land of Daulatpur acquired vide notification dated 31.10.69 and RFA No. 2409 of 1990 3 by allowing 12 % increase per year on the basis of decision of this Court in the case of Karnail Singh versus State of Punjab and another' 1990(1) RRR 101, the market value has been determined at the rate of Rs. 804/- per marla. It is pertinent to mention here that the counsel apearing for the Union of India has failed to find any fault with this finding of the Court below. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and therefore the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. August 25, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge