R.F.A. No. 658 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 658 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.9.2010 Dhani Ram and others .... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 658, 818, 1277. 1278 of 1991 and 2494 of 1992, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement in compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 23 kanals 3 marlas situated in village Nagina, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 10.8.1988 published on 23.8.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act for setting up of Housing Board Colony in Nagina. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 55,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 28.1.1991 assessed the compensation at ` 72,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the evidence produced on record by the landowners has not been considered by the learned court below. The sale-deed dated 17.10.1988, Ex. P-3, vide which 2 marlas of land was sold for ` 10,000/- has been totally ignored. The average sale consideration paid therein was ` 8 lacs per acre. No cut was required to be applied even on R.F.A. No. 658 of 1991 -2- consideration of sale-deed, Ex. P-4, as 2 kanals 10 marlas of land was sold vide that sale-deed. Considering the area of this sale-deed, even the acquired land was not a big chunk of land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that both the aforesaid sale-deeds cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land as the location thereof is not known. Secondly both were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The sale-deed, Ex. P-3, was registered on 17.10.1988 whereas sale-deed, Ex. P-4, was registered on 16.2.1989 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10.8.1988. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Considering the material placed on record by the parties, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the court below does not call for any interference. The learned court below has recorded a finding that the land pertaining to Ex. P-1 is located close to the acquired land. Considering the fact that it was for 2 kanals and 10 marlas of land and acquired land was 23 kanals 3 marlas, the learned court below applied a cut of 25% considering the same to be of smaller size which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 24.9.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge