R.F.A. No. 378 of 1994 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 23, 2010 (1) RFA No. 378 of 1994 (O&M) Smt. Keela Devi and another .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (2) RFA No. 379 of 1994 (O&M) Shamsher Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (3) RFA No. 449 of 1994 (O&M) Mohan Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (4) RFA No. 489 of 1994 (O&M) Assa Ram and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (5) RFA No. 490 of 1994 (O&M) Jaswant Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 378 of 1994 [ 2] (6) RFA No. 609 of 1994 (O&M) Hisham Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (7) RFA No. 610 of 1994 (O&M) Shamsher Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (8) RFA No. 618 of 1994 (O&M) Rameshwar .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (9) RFA No. 2096 of 1994 (O&M) Ram Rattan through LRs .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned nine appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 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, the prayer is for reduction in the R.F.A. No. 378 of 1994 [ 3] amount of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 378 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 5.4.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land situated in village Tewar, Had Bast No. 81, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was acquired for the purpose of construction of Madoli Middle distributory. The same was followed by notification dated 6.4.1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 6.10.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 80,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land; ` 65,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land and ` 48,000/- for Gair Mumkin kind of land. 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 @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land and ` 80,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led on record by the land owners in the form of sale deeds (Ex. A1 and Ex. A2). Vide sale deed (Ex. A1) dated 29.7.1987, 10 marlas of land in village Tewar, to which the acquired land pertained, was sold for ` 7,000/-, i.e., ` 1,12,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that acquisition of land was carried out more than eight months thereafter, the land owners were entitled to increase thereon @ 12% per annum and the compensation was required to be determined accordingly. Further reliance was placed upon sale deed (Ex. A2) dated 30.5.1987, vide which 1-1/2 marlas of land, situated in village Abheypur, was sold for ` 6,000/-, i.e., ` 6,40,000/- per acre. On a query by the court as to in which site plan produced on record by the land owners, the land pertaining to both the sale deeds is located, the answer by learned counsel for the land owners was plain and simple that there is no site plan on record showing the location of the land dealt with in the aforesaid two sale deeds. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below is more than what the land owners deserved. The agreement of settlement with any authority in the State does not have any evidentiary value in the court, as the value of land is required to be determined on the basis of consideration paid by a willing buyer to a willing purchaser. In the present case, the learned court below has committed an illegality in relying upon the agreement with the State while assessing the value of Chahi kind of land at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. R.F.A. No. 378 of 1994 [ 4] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as two sale deeds relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners are concerned, I do not find any justification to place reliance thereupon for the reason that the land pertaining thereto has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record to enable the court to compare its value considering the location thereof. As far as assessment of value of the acquired land by the learned court below relying upon the agreement with the State is concerned, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in that regard, as for the purpose of acquisition of land for SYL canal, the settlement between the Members of Action Committee and the then Chief Minister, Punjab was considered by this court in various appeals pertaining to the acquisition of land and placing reliance thereupon, the amount of compensation was granted. Reference can be made to The State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., (1990-1) PLR 278. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present set of appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge July 23,2010 mk