R.F.A. No. 61 of 1991 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 61 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.5.2011 Dharam Singh .... Appellant vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 61 and 644 of 1991, as common questions of law are involved therein. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 18.10.1985, published on 29.10.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 5.56 acres in the revenue estate of village Tatarpur Khalsa, Tehsil Rewari, District Mohindergarh, for construction of Dharuhera- Nand Rampur Bas road from Alwalpur to Bhatsana Road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:- Sr. No. Kind of the land Compensation assessed in ` per acre 1 Chahi 25,120/- 2 Barani 22,080/- 3 Bhud 20,000/- 4 Gair mumkin Ihata chah, Ihata Makan, Gait, Panchayat Ghar, Hadarodi and Gadha Khad 10,080/- R.F.A. No. 61 of 1991 (2) Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, determined the market value of the acquired land marked by letters AB, in the site plan, Ex. CI, @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre and for the remaining land, the award of the Collector was upheld. It is this award which is impugned by the landowners before this court. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the land pertaining to khasra no. 19 is adjoining to the land of khasra no. 18 for which the learned court below has assessed compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre, whereas for the rest of the land, the award of the Collector was upheld. This being just adjoining to the land of khasra no. 18, should be awarded same amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a case in which the Presiding Officer of the court had visited the site himself and got site plan prepared and assessed the compensation for the land which was located adjoining to the village boundary at a higher rate, whereas for rest of the land, the award of the Collector was upheld. There was, in fact, no evidence produced by the landowners to justify any increase. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the appeals. It was a bunch of 14 land references which were decided by the learned court below. The only two of the landowners have come in appeal before this court. The State has not filed any appeal challenging the award of the learned court below. If the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is accepted namely, that the learned court below having assessed the compensation for the land in khasra no. 18 at ` 1,00,000/- per acre, his khasra no. 19 being adjoining thereto should be awarded the same amount of compensation is accepted, then the same claim can be made even by the owners of the land beyond khasra no. 19 as then the same will be adjoining to khasra no. 19. In fact, the site plan, Ex. C-1, placed on record clearly shows that the learned court below made reasonable classification and higher rate was awarded for the land which was just abutting the R.F.A. No. 61 of 1991 (3) village boundary and remaining portion of the land award of the Collector was upheld as there is no evidence on record to show that the award of the Collector was not just and fair. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 5.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge