R.F.A. No. 1880 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1880 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2011 Badam (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1880, 1994 and 1995 of 1990, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the learned court below for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 3.5.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 6.67 acres of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Meham, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak for Municipal Committee, Meham. The same was followed by notification dated 3.5.1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 1.7.1988, assessed compensation @ ` 30,000/- 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 R.F.A. No. 1880 of 1990 [2] compensation @ ` 50,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that vide sale deed dated 31.5.1988 (Ex. A3) 13 marlas of land in the area of Meham was sold for ` 12,000/-, which though has correctly been relied upon by the court below for assessment of compensation for the acquired land, but the cut applied therein is quite unreasonable, as the same has been applied twice, i.e., one for the reason that it was pertaining to a small plot and the other reason that it was forming part of the abadi area. A perusal of the aforesaid sale deed shows that the land pertaining thereto was not forming part of abadi area. It was outside the abadi. Rather, it was quite close to the acquired land, as is evident from site plan (Ex. A1). On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the value, as assessed by the court below for the acquired land, does not call for any interference by this court. The sale deed, sought to be relied upon by the land owners is merely for a plot of 13 marlas. The acquired land is 53 kanals 9 marlas. It was registered 28 days after the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and so there is possibility of showing exaggerated price in the sale deed. He further submitted that 30 kanals and 15 marlas of land adjoining to the acquired land was sold vide sale deed dated 15.2.1989 (Ex. R1) for a total sale consideration of ` 1,48,000/-, i.e., ` 38,500/- per acre. Considering the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that assessment of value of the acquired land by the court below @ ` 50,000/- per acre calls for interference by this court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. In the present case, the acquired land is 53 kanals 9 marlas. Learned counsel for the land owners has placed reliance on sale deed (Ex. A3) pertaining to 13 marlas of land, which was sold for a sum of ` 12,000/-, at an average price of ` 1,47,692/- per acre. The learned court below, while assessing compensation, had applied a cut of 1/3rd twice for assessing compensation @ ` 50,000/- per acre. The land of aforesaid plot is located on road at a distance of about 3-4 acres from the acquired land. As against that, there is sale deed (Ex. R1) on record, which was registered R.F.A. No. 1880 of 1990 [3] on 15.2.1989, i.e., more than nine months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It pertains to the land, which is adjoining to the acquired land. Vide aforesaid sale deed, 30 kanals and 15 marlas of land was sold for a sum of ` 1,48,000/-, i.e., ` 38,500/- per acre. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, assessment of compensation by the court below @ ` 50,000/- per acre of the acquired land, which is a big chunk of 53 kanals and 9 marlas, cannot be said to be on the lower side. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any ground is made out to enhance the compensation. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 21.12.2011 mk