RFA No.2772 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2772 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2011 Om Parkash ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order will dispose of two appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2772 of 1990 and 635 of 1991, as the same arise out of common acquisition. Challenge in the present appeals is to the award dated 10.09.1990 passed by the District Judge, Narnaul. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Brief facts of the case are that State Government vide notification dated 07.03.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short “the Act”), sought to acquire the land situated in the revenue estate of village Sheonathpura, District Narnaul for construction of Nalapur Distributory by Irrigation Department. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) vide award dated 28.08.1980 assessed the market value @ ` 10,000/- per acre for Nehari land; ` 8,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 7,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 3,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 14,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the sale deed Ex.P3 produced on record by the land owners was registered on 06.06.1979 whereby land measuring 15 Kanals 6 marlas was sold at an average price of ` 13,600/- per acre. The notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 7.3.1980. His submission is that there is a gap of 9 months from the date of registration of sale deed till issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the land owners are entitled to increase @ 12% per annum for this intervening period. Another RFA No.2772 of 1990 2 argument raised by the learned counsel for the landowners is that there was construction existing on portion of the acquired land for which the land owners deserve to be awarded ` 40,000/- as compensation. However, learned court below has awarded merely ` 5,000/- for the same. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as against the average consideration of ` 13,600/- per acre paid in the sale deed Ex.P3, the learned court below has already awarded ` 14,000/- per acre as compensation for all kinds of land. There was gap of nearly 9 months between the date of registration of sale deed and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Claim regarding enhancement for the intervening period way back in the year 1980 cannot be made @ 12% per annum as it could not be more than 6% per annum. As far as construction on the acquired land is concerned, his submission was that no evidence was produced by the land owners to justify their claim. Still on an estimate base, the court below has already awarded the land owners a sum of ` 5,000/- merely considering the oral evidence though the land owners were not entitled to the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. The learned court below has already considered the sale deed Ex.P3 while assessing the compensation for the acquired land. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 06.06.1979 whereby area of 15 Kanals 6 Marlas of village Sheonathpura was sold at average price of ` 13,600/- per acre. The learned court below has already awarded ` 14,000/- per acre as compensation to the land owners pertaining to entire acquired land, which included even Barani and Gair Mumkin kind of land for which the award of the Collector ranges from ` 3,000/- to ` 8,000/- per acre. Besides the aforesaid sale deed there was no other evidence produced on record. As far as claim for compensation on account of construction is concerned, there is no documentary evidence produced on record to substantiate the same. In the absence thereof, this court is not in a position to enhance the compensation. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 02.02.2011 sharmila