R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: March 02 ,2009 1. R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 (O&M) Mehar Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector and another .. Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 918 of 1999 (O&M) Balkar Singh ` .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 919 of 1999 (O&M) Mehal Singh .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 4. R.F.A. No. 920 of 1999 (O&M) Chanan Singh and another .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 5. R.F.A. No. 921 of 1999 (O&M) Bakhtawar Singh and another .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 6. R.F.A. No. 982 of 1999 (O&M) Bakhtawar .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [2] 7. R.F.A. No. 984 of 1999 (O&M) Subhash Chander .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 8. R.F.A. No. 992 of 1999 (O&M) Chander Bhan (deceased) through LRS & another .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 9. R.F.A. No. 993 of 1999 (O&M) Inderjit .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 10. R.F.A. No. 994 of 1999 (O&M) Smt. Sundri Devi .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 11. R.F.A. No. 995 of 1999 (O&M) Sushil Kumar .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 12. R.F.A. No. 1208 of 1999 (O&M) Chander Bhan (deceased) through LR and others .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [3] 13. R.F.A. No. 1327 of 1999 (O&M) Harnam Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Department of Colonisation and another .. Respondents 14. R.F.A. No. 3188 of 1999 (O&M) Joginder Singh and another .. Appellants v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Department of Colonisation and another .. Respondents 15. R.F.A. No. 3189 of 1999 (O&M) Nikka Singh .. Appellant v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Department of Colonisation and another .. Respondents 16. R.F.A. No. 1529 of 1999 (O&M) Mohinder Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 17. R.F.A. No. 1530 of 1999 (O&M) Ajaib Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 18. R.F.A. No.1531 of 1999 (O&M) M/s Shankar Rice and General Mills through its partners .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [4] 19. R.F.A. No. 1532 of 1999 (O&M) Balwant Singh .. Appellant v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 20. R.F.A. No. 1533 of 1999 (O&M) Surjit Kaur and others ..Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 21. R.F.A. No. 1534 of 1999 (O&M) Gurdial Kaur and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 22. R.F.A. No. 1535 of 1999 (O&M) Smt. Bhagwan Kaur .. Appellant v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 23. R.F.A. No. 1536 of 1999 (O&M) Satish Kumar and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 24. R.F.A. No. 1537 of 1999 (O&M) Bhajan Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [5] 25. R.F.A. No. 1614 of 1999 (O&M) Partap Kaur and others .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 26. R.F.A. No. 1919 of 1999 (O&M) Sucha Singh and others .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 27. R.F.A. No. 1923 of 1999 (O&M) Surjit Kaur and others .. Appellants v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 28. R.F.A. No. 2046 of 1999 (O&M) Surjit Kaur .. Appellant v. Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 29. R.F.A. No. 2196 of 1999 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and another .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 30. R.F.A. No. 2197 of 1999 (O&M) Bhagwan Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [6] 31. R.F.A. No. 2198 of 1999 (O&M) Labh Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 32 R.F.A. No. 2199 of 1999 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 33. R.F.A. No. 2519 of 1999 (O&M) Iqbal Kaur .. Appellant v. The Collector, Land Acquisition & Colonisation Department and others .. Respondents 34. R.F.A. No. 799 of 2000 (O&M) Lal Singh and others .. Appellants v. The Government of Punjab and another .. Respondents 35. R.F.A. No. 695 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Mohinder Singh and others ..Respondents 36. R.F.A. No. 696 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Sadhu Ram .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [7] 37. R.F.A. No. 697 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Jarnail Singh and others ..Respondents 38. R.F.A. No. 698 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Assa Singh .. Respondent 39. R.F.A. No. 699 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Chanan Singh and another ..Respondents 40. R.F.A. No. 700 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Balwant Singh ..Respondent 41. R.F.A. No. 701 of 2001 and X.Obj No. 95-CI of 2008 The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Balbir Singh and another ..Respondents 42. R.F.A. No. 702 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Kanshi Ram ..Respondent 43. R.F.A. No. 703 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Partap Kaur and others ..Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [8] 44. R.F.A. No. 704 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Vinod Kumar ..Respondent 45. R.F.A. No. 705 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Bhajan Singh and others ..Respondents 46. R.F.A. No. 706 of 2001 (O&M) State of Punjab and another .. Appellants v. Mehar Singh and others ..Respondents 47. R.F.A. No. 707 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Chander Bhan (died) and another ..Respondents 48. R.F.A. No. 708 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Bakhtawar Singh ..Respondent 49. R.F.A. No. 709 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Balkar Singh ..Respondent 50. R.F.A. No. 710 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Smt. Sundri Devi ..Respondent R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [9] 51. R.F.A. No. 711 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Sushil Kumar ..Respondent 52. R.F.A. No. 712 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Bhagwan Singh and others ..Respondents 53. R.F.A. No. 713 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Smt. Bhagwan Kaur ..Respondent 54. R.F.A. No. 714 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Chameli Devi and another ..Respondents 55. R.F.A. No. 715 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Mehal Singh ..Respondent 56. R.F.A. No. 716 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Labh Singh ..Respondent R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [10] 57. R.F.A. No. 717 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Harnam Singh and others ..Respondents 58. R.F.A. No. 718 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Sohan Singh ..Respondent 59. R.F.A. No. 719 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Sucha Singh and another ..Respondents 60. R.F.A. No. 720 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Kirpal Singh and others ..Respondents 61. R.F.A. No. 721 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Nikka Singh ..Respondent 62. R.F.A. No. 722 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Iqbal Kaur ..Respondent 63. R.F.A. No. 723 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Surain Singh (died) and others ..Respondents R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [11] 64. R.F.A. No. 724 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Ajaib Singh and others ..Respondents 65. R.F.A. No. 725 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Bakhtawar Singh and another ..Respondents 66. R.F.A. No. 726 of 2001 (O&M) The Govt. of Punjab and others .. Appellants v. Nachhatar Singh (died) ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: S/Shri S.C. Chhabra, Mani Ram Verma, Sandeep Punchhi, Bikram S. Dhillon for N. S. Boparai, Advocates for the land owners. Shri Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for Punjab Mandi Board. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 66 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 918 to 921, 982, 984, 992 to 995, 1030, 1208, 1327, 3188, 3189, 1529 to 1537, 1614, 1919, 1923, 2046, 2196 to 2199, 2519 of 1999 and 799 of 2000, have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 695 to 726 of 2001 by the State of Punjab seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. In R.F.A. No. 701 of 2001, cross objections have been filed by the land owners praying for further enhancement of compensation. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 1030 of 1999. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 79 acres and 5 kanals, situated in the revenue estate of village Talwandi Bhai was acquired vide R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [12] notification dated 10.2.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for setting up of New Grain Market, which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 4.6.1986. The Collector vide award dated 2.6.1988, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. Learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ Rs. 4,60,000/- per acre upto one killa on the main road and @ Rs. 4,00,000/- for the land behind that. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land had a great potential for commercial use, as it was located within the municipal limits of Talwandi Bhai. It was located on the main road leading from Faridkot to Amritsar. There were number of residential colonies in the vicinity besides commercial establishments. The godown of MARKFED was located within the acquired land so the unit of Shankar Rice Mill. Petrol pump was located just opposite the acquired land on the main road. Number of shops were existing on the main road even in the acquired land. Immediately adjoining the acquired land was Arjan Service Station. It was located quite close to the city abadi. Adjoining the acquired land, FCI godowns were there. The learned court below has failed to consider the evidence led by the land owners on record. The land in question being in the municipal limits w.e.f. 19.9.1983 and the area in the vicinity having been urbanised already, in fact no cut was required to be imposed while assessing the value of the acquired land, which had to be assessed per square yard and not acre. The evidence led by the land owners in the form of sale deeds Ex. P.3 to Ex. P.34 of the various plots/ land sold within the acquired land and also pertaining to the nearby area have also not been considered in their true perspective. The learned court below merely averaged the value of the sale deeds by considering the time gap without considering the location thereof and if the location is considered, the value as assessed by the learned court below certainly deserves to be enhanced as from the acquired land, a portion was sold two years prior to the acquisition at an average rate of Rs. 13,34,000/- per acre. Sale deeds Ex. P.3, Ex. P.5 to Ex. P.9, Ex. P.11, Ex. P.12, Ex. P.14 and Ex. P.20 were forming part of the acquired land and were in fact best piece of evidence along with other evidence on record and the same could not be ignored for any reason whatsoever. He further submitted that statutory benefits, as are admissible to the land owners, had not been correctly granted by the learned court below. On the other hand, learned counsel for appearing for Punjab Mandi R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [13] Board submitted that the learned court below has totally gone astray while assessing the value of the acquired land. The principle, which was applied, has no basis. As to how the value has been assessed cannot possibly be made out from the impugned award. All what the court has done is collected all the sale deeds produced by the land owners, being Ex. P.3 to Ex. P.34, and divided them into three groups – one was said to be of the sale deeds executed before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act; the second group being the sale deeds executed within one year before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act; and the third being the average value of the sale deeds executed after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the process, the sale deeds, which were produced by the State, were totally ignored by recording a finding that the same have not been depicted on any site plan on record, which is totally contrary to record. By applying thumb rule, the value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs. 4,60,000/- per acre upto one killa on the main road and beyond that at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. He further submitted that the land, which was located off the main road was being used for agricultural purposes, as is evident from the award where compensation was assessed even for standing crops as well. Further relying upon Meharban and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1997 SC 2664, it was submitted that in the absence of any evidence of the vendors and the vendees to the sale deeds produced on record by the land owners, the same cannot be considered at all. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the same is not in dispute. As has already been noticed above, as even in the evidence led by the State, the evidence led by the land owners to that effect or the site plan produced were not disputed. Before dealing with the issue of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, I deem it appropriate to deal with the issue as to whether the learned court below has assessed the same by applying settled principles or not. If the answer to the question is in positive, no further discussion would be required. A perusal of the record shows that the land owners produced two site plans Ex. P.1 and Ex. P.2 and sale deeds Ex. P.3 to Ex. P.34 on record. The land pertaining to the sale deeds has been shown in site plan Ex. P.1, which shows the land pertaining to sale deeds Ex. P3, Ex. P5 to Ex. P9, Ex. P.11, Ex. P12, Ex. P14 and Ex. P.20 is forming part of the acquired land, whereas the land pertaining to other sale deeds is located in the area, which is quite close to the new bus stand, octroi post and towards the chowk on the road leading from Moga to Ferozepur R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [14] but at quite a distance from the acquired land. On a perusal of the site plan, the acquired land cannot be compared with the land, which is located near the new bus stand. What the learned court had done while assessing the fair value of the acquired land, without considering the location of any of the land forming part of the sale deeds is that it made three sets thereof and averaged the value contained therein. The calculation made by the learned court below is noticed in paragraph 21 of the impugned award, which is extracted below: “21. Out of the acquired land before notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 different owners sold different pieces of land. Ex. P3 to Ex. P12, Ex. P16, Ex. P33 and Ex. P34 are the sale deeds which were executed qua different pieces of land before the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. before 10.2.1984 and average price of the land per acre comes out to be approximately Rs. 5,90,000/-. Sale deeds Ex. P13, Ex. P14, Ex. P15, Ex. P17, Ex. P18, Ex. P19, Ex. P20 were executed within one year before the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the average price of the land per acre comes out to be approximately Rs. 11,45,000/-. Sale deeds Ex. P21, Ex. P22, Ex. P23, Ex. P26, Ex. P27 and Ex. P32 were executed after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but before the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. As per these sale deeds average price of the land comes out to be approximately Rs. 9,97,000/- per acre.” A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph shows that there was no linkage or basis for clubbing the value in the sale deeds, as has been done by he learned court below, as there was no comparability with regard to its location or date of registration. Though in group I, sale deeds Ex. P3 to Ex. P12, Ex. P16, Ex. P33 and Ex. P34 were sought to be clubbed by opining that these were registered before the notification under Section 4 of the Act, however, a perusal of the record shows that sale deeds Ex. P3 to Ex.P.12 were registered within the period ranging from 19.9.1980 to 13.1.1983, whereas sale deeds Ex. P16, Ex.P.33 and Ex. P.34 were registered on 9.7.1982, 13.1.1983 and 28.4.1989 respectively. Why sale deeds forming part of Group two were excluded though registered prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act is not borne out from the record. The second group was made of sale deeds dated 31.5.1983, 22.6.1983, 8.11.1983 (Ex. P.13 to Ex. P15) and 31.1.1983, 31.1.1983, 8.11.1983 and 3.6.1983 (Ex. P17 to Ex. P20) stating to be executed within one year before the date of notification under Section 4 of the R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [15] Act. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 10.2.1984. If in the second category, the sale deeds registered within one year before the notification under Section 4 of the Act were being clubbed, as to why sale deeds Ex. P.17 and Ex. P18 dated 31.1.1983 were included is not borne out from the record. As to for what purpose, a third category of sale deeds executed after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and before notification under Section 6 of the Act was made also could not be understood. In addition to this, all what has been discussed in paragraph 22 of the impugned award is that Ajaib Singh purchased 15 marlas of land in the year 1983 for a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, i.e., Rs. 4,80,000/- per acre. In 1981, Chander Bhan purchased two kanals of land @ Rs. 2,500/- per marla and sold the same in the year 1989 @ Rs. 9,200/- per marla, which shows the appreciation for the prices 5 years after the acquisition. A categoric finding was recorded that though the respondents/State had produced a number of sale deeds but the same were not helpful in the assessment of the market value as the location thereof has not been shown on any site plan. This fact noticed by the learned court below is totally contrary to record as the land pertaining to all the sale deeds produced by the State is located on site plan Ex. R1. Finally, the assessment of the compensation was made in paragraph 24 of the impugned award noticing therein that average value of the sale deeds executed within one year before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was approximately Rs. 5,90,000/- per acre. Even this fact noticed is contrary to the average value determined by the learned court below in paragraph 21 of the impugned award, where the value of the entire sale deeds registered before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was assessed at Rs. 5,90,000/- per acre and not were registered within one year. Subsequent thereto following lines were added “but while passing the award only those sale deeds were taken into consideration which are at a very less rate and secondly are qua the land which are not situated near the acquired land.” The aforesaid reasoning shows that the basis adopted by the learned court below was totally contrary to the settled principles of law. As to why only the sale deeds of less value and for the land which is not situated near the acquired land were considered, no reason is available. Thereafter applying a thumb rule, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 4,60,000/- per acre for the land located on the main road and at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre for the land situated behind that. In my opinion, the manner in which the value of the acquired land R.F.A. No. 1030 of 1999 [16] had been determined by the learned court below is totally contrary to the settled principles of law. It is a fact on record that there were 10 sale deeds available on record, which were forming part of the acquired land. The same being best piece of evidence was not considered at all in their true spirit. As against that, irrespective of the location of the land dealt with in various sale deeds produced by the land owners, those were clubbed only considering the date on which the same were registered, which is not the correct criteria to be applied for assessing the fair value of the acquired land as it is only the comparable instances which are to be taken into consideration. Still further, the finding that the land pertaining to the sale deeds produced by the State have not been pointed out on any site plan is also contrary to the record. As a result thereof, what can be opined is that the impugned award suffers from various legal infirmities and the value, as assessed therein, cannot be said to be the correct value of the acquired land. As it has been found that the learned court below has not assessed the value of the acquired land by correctly applying the settled principles of law, there are two options available with this Court – one is to remit the matter