RFA No. 2506 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2506 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.10.2010. State of Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Surta and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the landowners/ cross-objectors. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2506 to 2515 of 1996, and 335 to 339, 1050 of 1997 and cross-objection no. 83 to 88, 94 to 98/ CI of 1997, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana is 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 reduction of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing cross-objections the landowners are seeking further enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 28.2.1986 and published on 18.3.1986 in the Haryana Government Gazette, the State of Haryana, acquired 6.20 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Assan-Khurd, Hadbast No. 22, Tehsil Panipat, then District Karnal, for construction of road through Untla to Assan-Khurd. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.2.1986 which was published on 18.3.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 9.10.1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 30,000/- per acre for chahi/ gair mumkin bara and ` 15,000/- per acre for banjar kadim kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 50,000/- per acre. It is this award which is challenged before this court by both the parties. RFA No. 2506 of 1996 -2- Learned counsel for the State submitted that patent error has been committed by the learned court below in awarding compensation to the landowners at a uniform rate whereas on the basis of entries in the revenue record, the land had been classified into different categories and the Collector had determined the compensation in terms thereof. There was no material on record to justify the award of the learned court below for assessing the entire land in one category. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that considering the location of the land, quite meager amount of compensation has been paid to the landowners. However, they being poor, as small portion of land pertaining to different landowners for the purpose of construction of road through Untla to Assan-Khurd was acquired, they were not even able to file appeals in this court at the relevant time. But they were made to defend the appeals filed by the State. Even otherwise with the construction of road, the land of the landowners had been divided into two portions and it has become difficult for them to cultivate the two portions of the land. Nothing has been awarded to them on account of severance by the learned court below. No land in the area was banjar kadim for which a different amount has been assessed by the Collector. No illegality as such has been committed by the learned court below in granting uniform rate for the entire land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In the present case, a small portion of land measuring 6.20 acres was acquired by the State for construction of road through Untla to Assan-Khurd. The only contention sought to be raised by the learned State counsel was that the learned court below has committed illegality in assessing the entire land at a uniform rate by ignoring the classifications thereof in terms of which the value was assessed by the Collector. Considering the fact that it was a small acquisition of land carried out more than 24 years earlier and also the fact that the landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance, as far as appeals filed by the State are concerned I do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. There is no merit even in the cross-objections filed by the landowners as no evidence produced on record was referred to at the time of hearing, which could justify any increase in compensation. Accordingly, the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed. 28.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge