R. F. A No. 482 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 482 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.9.2008 The State of Punjab ..... Appellant vs Smt. Nirmala Devi ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant. Mr. G. S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Punjab has filed the present appeal aggrieved against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation awarded for acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 26.3.1984, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired a small piece of land measuring 1.78 acres, in Village Janauri, for public purpose namely for construction of staff-quarters. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 6,104.50 paise per acre. The landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 2.12.1987, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 790/- per marla. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the value of the land determined by the court below is quite on the higher side if considered in the light of evidence produced on record. Whereas learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in fact the value determined by the court below is less even if the evidence led by the respondent/landowner is considered in the light of the future potentiality of the land. He has referred to the evidence led by the parties as regards the location of the land. As per the evidence led by the respondent there are shops and other R. F. A No. 482 of 1988 2 commercial establishments near the acquired land, which was further supported by statement of RW1 Gurbachan Singh Patwari. He further submitted that during his cross-examination Gurbachan Singh has admitted that the acquired land abuts roads on two sides and there is a bus stand near it. He further referred that the Punjab National Bank is also situated in front of the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, this is the admitted position on record in the form of statements of various witnesses who appeared on behalf of the respondent/landowner and further admitted by RW1 Gurbachan Singh Patwari. The land is situated with road on two sides. There are number of shops in the vicinity. Punjab National Bank is just in front of the acquired land. The same is the position of the bus-stand. The learned court below relied upon two sale deeds, Ex. P-6 and P-7 which were of the same khasra no. 418 which was subject matter of acquisition. The same was best piece of evidence as compared to any other evidence led by the parties. Keeping in view the evidence of transactions pertaining to the same khasra number, the location of the land and also the fact that the acquisition is also for a small piece of land measuring 1.78 acres of land situated with road on two sides, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in determining the compensation payable to the respondent/landowner. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 18.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge