R.F.A. No. 2878 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.7.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 2878 of 2001 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Om Parkash and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 2879 of 2001 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Mehtab Singh and others .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 3342 of 2001 (O&M) Om Parkash and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 3343 of 2001 (O&M) Mehtab Singh and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the land owners. ... R.F.A. No. 2878 of 2001 [2] Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned four appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State of Haryana, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2878 of 2001. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 27.10.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 0.18 acres of land, situated in village Naneola, Hadbast No. 292, Tehsil and District Ambala, for extension of Naneola Minor from RD No. 22235 to 35100. The same was followed by notification dated 5.12.1997, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre. 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 @ ` 2,90,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of land, is not just and fair and the same calls for further enhancement. The relevant material produced on record by the land owners has not been considered. Appropriate increase has not been awarded, considering the fact that the sale deed relied upon by the learned court below was registered 5 years prior to the date of acquisition. Even the assessment of compensation on account of severance is also on lower side, as merely 10% has been granted, which should have been at least 50%, considering the fact that the acquisition of land was for extension of Naneola Minor. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned court below is not just and fair. There was no material on record to justify the enhancement of compensation to the extent it has been awarded by the learned court below. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by either of the parties. The learned court below had referred to three sale deeds, i.e., Ex. P5, Ex. P6 and Ex. P9. Sale deed (Ex. P9), which was registered quite close to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act pertained to four kanals of land, which was sold at an average price of ` R.F.A. No. 2878 of 2001 [3] 2,95,500/- per acre. The learned court below has already assessed the compensation @ ` 2,90,000/- per acre. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the value of land, as has been assessed by the learned court below, calls for any interference. As far as award of severance is concerned, the learned court below has already assessed the same @ 10%, which is also quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.7.2010 mk