RFA No.756 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.756 of 1992 Date of Decision: 1.7.2010 Karnail Singh and others ..Appellants. Vs. The State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.L.Gupta, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. By this order, I shall be disposing of three Regular First Appeals bearing No.756 of 1992 arising out of land Reference No.443 of 25.4.1989 titled as Karnail Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab decided by District Judge, Ropar on 5.10.1991 pertaining to village Shantpur and Cross appeal bearing RFA No.3301 of 1992 in the same reference titled as The State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh and others and RFA No.757 of 1992 arising out of land Reference No.458 of 25.4.1989 titled as Karnail Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab pertaining to village Kotli decided on 5.10.1991 by the District Judge, Ropar as common questions of law are involved in all the three appeals. However, the facts from RFA No.756 of 1992 are that land measuring 22.66 acres was acquired pursuant to notification dated 13.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land RFA No.756 of 1992 -2- Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 20.6.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates: Chahi Rs.72,500/- per acre Barani Rs.50,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs.45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/- per acre The claimants, dissatisfied with the award of compensation preferred Objections under Section 18 of the Act in which Rs.3,20,000/- per acre was claimed which was contested by the respondent-State in which it was averred that already adequate compensation has been awarded by the Collector according to the potentiality and suitability of the land. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after taking into consideration the evidence produced on record, the learned Reference Court, on the basis of agreement (Mark A), reassessed the compensation of the acquired land at the following rates: Chahi land Rs.1,00,000/- per acre Barani land Rs.75,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs.65,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs.60,000/- per acre The compensation was awarded with all the statutory benefits as per the Amended Act with costs of the appeal, which was assessed at Rs.200/-. Aggrieved against the order of District Judge, Ropar dated 5.10.1991, both the claimants and the State of Punjab have preferred their appeals which are mentioned in the beginning of the judgment. RFA No.756 of 1992 -3- In the case of RFA No.757 of 1992, land measuring 5.02 acres of village Kotli was acquired pursuant to notification dated 12/15.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector vide his award dated 20.6.1986 assessed the market value of the acquired lnd at the following rates: Chahi Rs.72,500/- per acre Barani Rs.50,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs.45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/- per acre The claimants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector. They filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed Rs.3,20,000/- per acre. On the basis of evidence on record, the learned Reference Court vide its order dated 5.10.1991 re-assessed the market value on the basis of an agreement entered into between the then Chief Minister, Punjab and SYL Action Committee, at the following rates: Chahiland Rs.1,00,000/- per acre Barani land Rs.75,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs.65,000/- per acre The claimants were also held entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the Amended Act with costs of Rs.200/-. Sh.C.B.Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in both the cases, namely, in the case of villages Shantpur and Kotli prayed for enhancement of compensation by referring to the potentiality of the acquired land but except for his oral and bald assertion, there is no evidence on record on the basis of which compensation could be further enhanced. As a matter of fact, whatever evidence has been led by the RFA No.756 of 1992 -4- claimants in the shape of sale deeds had already been considered by the Court below on the basis of which it has been found that compensation was less than Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order by which the learned Reference Court has reassessed the compensation on the basis of agreement entered into between the then Chief Minister, Punjab, representing the State and office bearers of SYL Action Committee. Insofar as the appeal filed by the State of Punjab is concerned, it would be worthwhile to mention that in the case of State of Punjab Vs.Surjan Singh and others 1990(1) PLR 278 that agreement between the Government and members of the Action Committee was held to be a relevant piece of evidence on the basis of which compensation was re- assessed. In view of the fact that there is no evidence either on behalf of the claimants or on behalf of the State worth consideration either for the purpose of enhancement or for the reduction of compensation, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Court below and as such, the appeals filed by the claimants as well as by the State of Punjab is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 1.7.2010 Judge Meenu