RFA No. 1259 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1259 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.5.2011 Gurmit Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Mr. Hardip Singh and Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1259 to 1261 of 1994; R.F.A. Nos. 1904, 2423, 2412 of 1995; R.F.A. Nos. 664, 937, 1756, 1935, 2006, 2085, 2206 to 2208, 2210, 2254 to 2256, 2458 of 1996; R.F.A. Nos. 98, 228, 232, 804, 955, 956, 1243, 2029, 2030 of 1997; and R.F.A. Nos. 449, 1258, 1335 of 1998 as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. RFA No. 1259 of 1994 [2] The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1259 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6/7.10.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab sought to acquire 16.51 acres of land in village Mehmudpur, H.B. No. 59/368, Tehsil Kharar, District Rupnagar for construction of SYL Canal project. The same was followed by notification dated 20/21.12.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 86,800/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 70,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 49,000/- per acre 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 land; ` 75,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 65,000/- per acre for Banjar jadid land and ` 60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. It may be mentioned here that vide same notification for the same purpose, State of Punjab acquired the land in villages Sottal, Majat and Bassian. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land pertaining to these villages also at the same rate. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below dismissed the same pertaining to village Sotal. For the acquired land pertaining to village Majat, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre and in some cases, the learned court below dismissed the references. In some cases, compensation of ` 1,00,000/- per acre was assessed for the acquired land pertaining to village Bassain, whereas in some cases, the same was assessed @ ` 90,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners relying upon the judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 3225 of 1992 –Satpal Sharma and another v. The State of Punjab, decided on 14.1.2011 and R.F.A. No. 2267 of 1990—Gurdev Singh (deceased) through his LRs v. State of Punjab, decided on 26.11.2008, wherein in respect of acquisition carried RFA No. 1259 of 1994 [3] out in 1985 pertaining to land of villages Mehmudpur and Sottal, compensation of ` 2,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 1,60,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land was awarded, submitted that for the time gap in the acquisitions, the land owners should be awarded increase. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below is just and fair and no enhancement deserves to be granted to the land owners. In Satpal Sharma and Gurdev Singh's cases (supra), this Court had assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 1,60,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land pertaining to villages Mehmudpur and Sottal. The acquisition in those cases was carried out in 1985. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 6/7.10.1989. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners that increase for the time gap in the two notifications be awarded is devoid of any merit, as they could not refer to any material on record to justify the said increase. Therefore, keeping in view the compensation awarded in Satpal Sharma and Gurdev Singh's cases (supra), the same compensation is awarded in respect of acquisition of land in dispute as well. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. With regard to value of land pertaining to villages Majat and Bassain, it is not in dispute that these are adjoining to villages Sottal and Mehmudpur. The Collector also awarded compensation at the same rate for all the villages. According to the Collector, the location and potentiality of the land in all the four villages is similar. Learned counsel for the land owners could not differentiate the land of villages Majat and Bassain from that of villages Mehmudpur and Sottal. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the land in these two villages would be identical in nature and value. In view of the above, it is held that the land of the land RFA No. 1259 of 1994 [4] owners in the present case having been acquired at the same time and for the same purpose, they would also be entitled same amount of compensation. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the judgments of this court in Satpal Sharma and Gurdev Singh's cases (supra). ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 16.5.2011 mk