R. F. A No. 1628 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 17.11.2008 1. R. F. A No. 1628 of 2000 (O&M) Gurdeep Singh and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 949 of 2000 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ..... Appellants vs Balbir Singh and another ... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 950 of 2000 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Harjinder Kaur and others ... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 951 of 2000 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ..... Appellants vs Gurmej Singh ... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 1624 of 2000 (O&M) Balbir Singh and another ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 1625 of 2000 (O&M) Gurmej Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 1626 of 2000 (O&M) Ajit Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 8. R. F. A No. 1627 of 2000 (O&M) Harjinder Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents R. F. A No. 1628 of 2000 2 9. R. F. A No. 1693 of 2000 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ..... Appellants vs Gurdeep Singh and another ... Respondents 10. R. F. A No. 4977 of 2001 (O&M) State of Punjab and another ..... Appellants vs Ajit Singh ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. S. Goraya, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. Nos. 1624 to 1628 of 2000 and for respondents in the remaining cases. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1624 to 1628 of 2000 filed by the landowners, and Regular First Appeal Nos. 949, 950, 951 and 1693 of 2000 and 4977 of 2001 filed by the State of Punjab, as the same arise out of the same acquisition. The claimants have approached this court through the present appeals for further enhancement, whereas the State of Punjab has filed appeals for reduction in the compensation. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 1628 of 2000. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 27.9.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land in the revenue estate of Village Bariar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur for construction of a building for the establishment of an Engineering College at Gurdaspur. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.11.1995 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 4.8.1999, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre. R. F. A No. 1628 of 2000 3 Learned counsel for the landowners argued that the learned court below has not fairly assessed the value of the acquired land as it has failed to consider the evidence placed on record by the landowners in the form of sale-deeds, Ex. A-1 to A-3 and A-17 which clearly established that the fair value of the acquired land was much more than what was assessed. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the submission is that there is Restaurant, Primary Health Centre, Co-operative Store,FCI Godowns, Petrol Pump, Bank, shops, Atta Chakkis, Saw Mill, ITI, Milk Plant, Vegetable Market etc. in the vicinity of the acquired land. The octroi post of Gurdaspur is also in the land of Village Bariar. Being in the close vicinity of the already urbanised area, the land in question had great potential for development as residential and commercial area. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 3,20,000/- without there being any basis. However, he did not refer to any record or material to substantiate his claim. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record. The relevant site plans are Ex. A-4 and R-1. In both the site plans, the location of the land pertaining to the sale-deeds either produced by the landowners or produced by the State had not been shown. Neither the boundary of the acquired land has been shown. From the perusal of the impugned award, it is found that the land is situated at a distance of 5-6 killas from the G. T. Road leading to Pathankot. As far as the sale-deeds produced by the landowners are concerned, sale-deed Ex.A-1 was rightly not considered by the learned court below for the reason of its being registered after the date of acquisition of land i.e. 8.6.1994. Sale-deed Ex. A-2 was not considered for the simple reason that it was located on the main G. T. Road. Similar was the situation with regard to Ex.A-3. The position regarding sale-deeds produced by the State also remained the same as location thereof has also not been marked. The learned court below finding the sale-deed Ex. A-17 to be more appropriate piece of evidence for the reason that it was for 1 kanal of land. The sale-deed was registered on 8.2.1993 before the acquisition of land and could be noticed in the site plan considering its khasra numbers. It R. F. A No. 1628 of 2000 4 was located close to the acquired land and off the G. T. Road. The average price of land in sale-deed Ex. A-17, which was sold for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, comes to Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre. Even vide sale-deed Ex. R-6, 3 kanals land was sold for Rs. 1,20,000/-. In this case as well the average per acre price comes to Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre. Though Ex. R-6 was technically not considered by the court below for the reason that vendee or the vendor has not been produced. However, keeping in view the position of law as it exists today, the vendor or vendee are not required to be produced and certified copy of the sale-deed is admissible as such. Meaning thereby that the value shown in the two sale-deeds Ex. A-17 and Ex. R-6 is same and this is what has been awarded by the learned court below. I do not find any other material on record which could justify any further increase or even reduction in the amount of compensation as determined by the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 17.11.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge