RFA No. 3720 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 3720 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.3.2011 Hawa Singh ...Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. K. S. Dhanora, Advocate, and Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 3720 to 3730 of 2009, filed by the landowners and RFA Nos. 667 to 677 of 2010 filed by the State of Haryana, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. By filing appeals, the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of Sisar Minor vide notification dated 6.5.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Haryana, situated within the revenue estate of village Sisar, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 31.12.2002 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,40,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, both the parties are in appeal before this court. RFA No. 3720 of 2009 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has not awarded just and fair compensation for the acquired land while considering the location and potential value thereof. The acquired land is fertile and canal irrigated. It is located near village Sorkhi, which is situated near the National Highway No. 10. The acquired land can be used for commercial purposes as various industrial units have already been established near it. The landowners have placed on record valuation report, Ex. P-4, and sale-deed Ex. P-9 showing the value of the land in the area. But the same were ignored while determining market value of the acquired land. The location of the acquired land is clearly shown on the site plan, Ex. P-1, placed on record by the landowners. It was further argued by learned counsel for the landowners that due to construction of minor the land of the landowners has been divided, and it has become difficult for them to cultivate two portions of land. On this account, no compensation has been awarded to them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that learned Court below has wrongly enhanced the compensation for the acquired land which was acquired only for agricultural purposes. The evidence led by the State in the form of sale-deed, Ex. R-2, was totally ignored. He further argued that the value of the land of each area is different keeping in view the location and other advantages. But in the present case, the onus to prove the value of the land was on the landowners, which they have failed to discharge. They produced sale- deed, Ex. P-9, dated 12.6.2008, in evidence, which the learned court below has rightly discarded as the same was registered after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Inspite of that the learned court below, without there being any evidence on record enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquired land. It was submitted that the Collector had awarded sufficient compensation for the acquired land. It was prayed that award of the learned court below be set aside and that of the Collector be restored Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the landowners that the acquired land is not abutting the National Highway No. 10. It is the land of village Sorkhi which is abutting the National Highway No. 10 and village Sisar is situated at a distance of about 1 kilometer from village Sorkhi. RFA No. 3720 of 2009 (3) In so far as valuation report Ex. P4, prepared by PW13 Uday Singh Patwari, is concerned, the same was prepared on 2.5.2008. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had calculated the rate on the asking of the villagers who are interested party. Further this report was not prepared by him on the basis of any sale-deed or on the basis of documentary evidence. The self assessment report prepared by PW13 Uday Singh Patwari was rightly disbelieved by the learned court below while assessing the market value of the acquired land. As far as sale-deed, Ex. P-9, placed on record by the landowners, is concerned, the same was registered on 12.6.2008 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.5.2002. This sale-deed, Ex. P-9, cannot be considered to determine the value of the land which was acquired in the year 2002. Vide sale Ex. R-2, produced by the State, land measuring 9 kanals was sold at an average price of ` 1,06,667/- per acre. The same cannot be assessed as market value of the acquired land as the Collector had awarded ` 1,40,000/- per acre. Further, the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of Sisar Minor. The landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance though their land has been divided into two parts. The learned court below considering the location and potentiality of the land had awarded compensation @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre and not awarded any compensation on account of bifurcation of their land, which cannot be said on higher side. Even if there is some small difference in the valuation, this court would not like to interfere in the matter. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 10.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge