R.F.A. No. 3044 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 12, 2008 1 R.F.A. No. 3044 of 1992 Punjab State and another ... Appellants Vs. Bhagwan Dass (deceased) through LRs .. Respondents 2 R.F.A. No. 3045 of 1992 Punjab State and another ... Appellants Vs. Raghbir Singh and others .. Respondents 3 R.F.A. No. 3046 of 1992 Punjab State and another ... Appellants Vs. Amar Singh ... Respondent 4 R.F.A. No. 3047 of 1992 Punjab State and another ... Appellants Vs. Amar Singh and others ... Respondents 5 R.F.A. No. 3048 of 1992 Punjab State and another ... Appellants Vs. Shankar .. Respondent 6 R.F.A. No. 3049 of 1992 Punjab State and another ... Appellants Vs. Gram Panchayat ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. R.F.A. No. 3044 of 1992 [2] None for the land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 3044 to 3049 of 1992, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3044 of 1992. The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land awarded to the land owners. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 8 acres situated in the area of village Gaggar, Hadbast No. 374, Tehsil Dasuya was acquired vide notification dated 16.1.1984 for construction of Kandi Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide his award dated 24.7.1985, determined the market value of the land acquired as under: Class of land Rate per acre (i) Barani Rs. 6,315/- (ii) Banjar Qadim Rs. 7,999/- (iii) Gair Mumkin Rs. 1,684/- Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land at Rs. 28,000/- per acre in respect of all categories of land. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below relied upon earlier awards (Ex. A19 and Ex. A20) pertaining to the acquisition of land for different villages, which should not have been relied upon as there was no material on record to suggest that they were located in the vicinity. As against this, there was evidence produced by the State on record in the form of sale deeds which shows that value of the land acquired was correctly assessed by the Collector. Having heard learned counsel for the State, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 16.1.1984 for the land pertaining to village Gagggar, Tehsil Dasuya. It has further come in evidence that boundary and land of villages Jugial, Swar, Asafpur and Bodalian touches the village in question. Vide sale deed (Ex. A2) dated 11.6.1982, 2 kanals and 4 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 5,000/-, at an average price of Rs. 24,054/- per acre. Vide sale deed (Ex. A3) dated 27.5.1983, the land was sold at an average price of Rs. 27,219/- per acre. As per sale deed R.F.A. No. 3044 of 1992 [3] (Ex. A4) dated 31.7.1984, the land was sold at an average price of Rs. 42,000/- per acre. The average price in sale transaction (Ex.A5) dated 19.10.1984 was Rs. 28,063/- per acre. Further reference was made to an earlier award (Ex. A19) pertaining to the land of village Badalian which is located close to the land in the present case, where the learned Reference Court determined the value of the acquired land at Rs. 28,000/- per acre. Ex. A20 was the award pertaining to the acquisition of land of village Asafpur, where also aforesaid award (Ex. A19) was followed. As the land in the present case was also located close to that land, the learned court below followed the same and determined the value at Rs. 28,000/- per acre. As the land, which was dealt with in award (Ex. A19) is located in the vicinity, the acquisition in the present case is for construction of Kandi Canal for which the land will always be acquired inside the villages, I do not find any illegality in case the learned court below has relied upon the earlier award pertaining to the acquisition for the same purpose as off the main road inside the villages, the land normally carries the same value. Even grant of 10% on account of severance by the learned court below also cannot be faulted with as it cannot be denied that with the acquisition of land for construction of a canal, the land will always be divided into two parts which will make the land owners difficult to cultivate the other part of the land for various factors. Accordingly, even on that account, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.12.2008 mk