RFA No.2241 of 1990 (9 cases) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 2241 of 1990 (9cases) Decided on August 25,2008. Surjit Singh and another ---Appellant. vs. The State of Punjab and another --- Respondents Present: Mr.C.B.Goel,Advocate,for appellants. Mr.Manohar Lall,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of RFA Nos. 2241,2244,2401,2247,2242,2245,2243,2402 and 2246 of 1990, as questions of law and facts involved in the same are common. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') was issued on 18.9.1985 and was published in the Indian Express dated 1.10.1985 and Nawan Zamana on 2.10.1985 whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23.9.1985 and was published in the Indian Express and in Chardi Kalan on 4.10.1985. Accordingly, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act has been reckoned as 2.10.1985 and Section 6 of the Act as 4.10.1985 respectively. Through this notification, land measuring 33.18 acres in village Badwali, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired for the construction of SYL Canal. RFA No.2241 of 1990 (9 cases) 2 The Collector under the Act, vide his award No.98-R-SYL dated 18.6.1986, assessed the compensation @ Rs. 72,500/- per acre for Chahi Land, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Banjar land and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. Unsatisfied claimants objected to the award and sought reference claiming an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre on the ground that the acquired land abuts on the National Highway leading from Sirhind to Chandigarh. The respondents contested their claim and pleaded that the compensation awarded is not only adequate but also fair and has been awarded after keeping in view the relevant facts and quality of land. It was also urged that the acquired land was purely an agricultural land. The land owners examined Gurdev Singh as PW-1, Pritam Singh as PW-2 and Gurbachan Singh Patwari as PW-3 and also tendered into evidence copies of sale deed Exs P-1 to P-4, copies of jamabandis Ex. P-5 to P-10. Copy of Tribune mark 'B' and copy of judgment Ex. P-11. On the other hand, the respondents examined Bhagat Ram as RW-1, who proved the sale deed Ex. R-1 and site plan Ex R-2. The sale instances produced by the claimants and that of the respondents are tabulated herein below for ready reference:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sr.No. Date of sale Area sold Vill/kind Price Price per acre Ex-P-2 15.1.85 1K-10M Kajauli Rs.28000/- 1,49280/- Chahi Ex-P-3 5.3.85 1K-10M Badwali Rs.15000/- 80,000/- Chahi Ex-P-4 19.3.85 1K-0M Tajpura Rs.15000/- 1,20,000/- Chahi RFA No.2241 of 1990 (9 cases) 3 Ex-R-1 7.1.86 6K-0M Badwali Rs.15000/- 20000/- Barani - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The aforesaid evidenced has been discussed by the reference Court and compensation was awarded @ Rs. 85,000/- per acre for Chahi Land, Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs. 55,000/- for Banjar land and Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. Mr.C.B.Goel, counsel for the appellants has raised two fold arguments, firstly,that the land in question has been acquired for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal.,whereas in the case of Hari Singh reported as Hari Singh (since dead) through L.Rs and others v. The Land Acquisition Collector, (S.Y.L.),Patiala and another 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 352, land situated within the revenue estate of village Thali, Tehsil and District Ropar, was acquired by the notifications dated 26.11.1982/27.11.1982 for the same purpose of construction of SYL Canal in which Collector had determined the compensation as Rs.2,05,000/- per acre for chahi land, whereas in the present case, the compensation has been assessed by the Collector for acquisition of land of village Badwali @ Rs. 72,500/- per acre for the acquisition of 2.10.1985,therefore, the appellants be awarded compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- per acre with an increase of 10% for the gap of two notifications. Secondly, that in a previous award of this Court Ex.P-11, a Single Bench of this Court had awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-per acre for the land of village Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, on the basis of an agreement mark 'A', therefore, at least, the appellants are entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. RFA No.2241 of 1990 (9 cases) 4 On the other hand, counsel for the respondents Mr. Manohar Lall,Addl.A.G.Punjab, has argued that decision in the case of Hari Singh (Supra) has no relevance with the present acquisition as it was entirely on different facts because in that case, the only argument advanced before the Court was qua Barani land for which compensation was assessed @ Rs. 1,64,000/- per acre. It was further argued that the award Ex. P-11 is also not relevant being pertaining to a different village in District Patiala and cannot be considered to be a comparable instance for the purpose of assessing the market value in the present case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. So far as the first argument of counsel for the appellants is concerned, in that case, land was acquired of a different revenue estate of village Thali,Tehsil and District Ropar, whereas land in this case is acquired for a different revenue estate of village Badwali. The Land Acquisition Act, is neither a tool in the hands of the Government to deprive any person of the acquired land without payment of value nor a bonanza to a land holder whose land has been acquired permitting him to get a fanciful inflated price. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument of counsel for the appellants that value of the acquired land should be equated with the value of the land acquired in different revenue estate without leading any evidence to the effect of contiguity and other factors. So far as the second argument is concerned that the reference Court should have allowed compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre as RFA No.2241 of 1990 (9 cases) 5 determined vide Ex.P-11, it has been rightly held by the reference Court that the land in Ex.P-11 was of village Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, situated on the road connecting Rajpura with Chandigarh through Banur and Zirakpur in which the evidence had come that there was a focal point Hospital and Dispensary, two branches of banks and office of Punjab State Electricity Board,whereas the land in the present acquisition is situated in village Badwali on Morinda-Sirhind road ,therefore, in my view the Court has rightly relied upon sale deed Ex.P-3 dated 05.3.1985 pertaining to village Badwali, which is prior in time to that of date of notification. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the amount awarded as compensation is just and adequate. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. August 25,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge