RFA No. 2283 of 1993 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2283 of 1993 Date of Decision : 23.11.2009 Punjab State & others .......... Appellants Versus Smt. Kanso & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of three regular first appeals i.e. RFA No. 2283 of 1993 titled Punjab State & others Vs. Smt. Kanso & others, RFA No. 1563 of 1993 titled Punjab State & others Vs. Smt. Kanso & others and RFA No. 2282 of 1993 titled Punjab State & others Vs. Parshotam & others, as the common question of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No. 2283 of 1993 titled Punjab State & others Vs. Smt. Kanso & others. The appellants being dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector dated 29.3.1988, sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming the compensation for the acquired land. The application was contested by taking a plea that the RFA No. 2283 of 1993 2 compensation awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Collect was reasonable, fair and adequate, therefore, did not call for any interference. It was the stand that the residential houses of the appellants were far away from the acquired land. In support of the claim, the land owner examined Karmo as PW1, who deposed that the acquired land was situated in village Thara Uperla Teeka Ladhwal, where there was a colony of Ranjit Sagar Dam employees consisting of 5000/6000 houses, hospital, High School, Bank, 400/500 shops, bus stand etc. She also deposed that Dhar Udampur road passes through village Thara Uperla, and that the employees of Ranjit Sagar Dam were living in village, where the rent of accommodation is Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only) per month per room. She also deposed that the land acquired had the potentiality of residential and commercial property. Sh. Mukesh Saini, Patwari, while appearing as AW-2 proved Sharja Akas Ex. A-1 showing the location of the acquired land. It was also stated by the Patwari that the land was fertile, giving 2-3 crops in a year. Thus, it was the case of the landowners that it was a developed village. On the land hand, the State examined Tilak Raj, retired Patwari, who proved Sharja Akas Ex. R-1, to prove that the river was at a distance of 70 karams from Teeka Ladhwal and a Khud between Thara Uperala and Teeka Ladhwal, and that there was no abadi in village Teeka Ladhwal. It was asserted that because of the Khud the land did not have any potential value, as residential or commercial property. It was also deposed by RW-1 Tilak Raj that Teeka Ladhwal was destroyed by the river floods. RFA No. 2283 of 1993 3 In addition to the Statement of RW-1 the respondent / State also produced sale deeds Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4 and awards Ex. R-5 and Ex. R- 6 in support of the assertion that the land had no potential value. The learned reference Court did not accept the sale deeds as well as the award Ex. R-5 relied upon by the State for the reason that it related to the notification of the year 1985, whereas the notification qua the land, in the case, was issued in the year 1987. The learned reference Court also ignored the award Ex. R-6 for the reason that nothing was proved on record to show that the award of the Collector was confirmed in the reference filed under Section 18 of the Act. The landowners, on the other hand, produced sale deed Ex. P-3 & P-4. The sale deed Ex. P-3 & P-4 related to the sale on 27.4.1987, which was just before the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The said sale deeds, however, were with respect to the land of Teeka Katal and village Phangota. The learned reference Court held that this was relevant sale consideration as Teeka Ladhwal adjoins Teeka Katal and land of both these teekas was of same kind and quality. The learned reference Court also took note of the award Ex. P-2 vide which compensation for Abi Land was fixed @ Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per acre, and for Barani land @ Rs. 35,000/- ( rupees thirty five thousand only ) per acre. The learned reference Court held that the land was also acquired under the same notification, qua which award Ex. P-2 was passed. The learned Court held that the quality of the land was the same and was acquired under the same RFA No. 2283 of 1993 4 notification, therefore, the landowners were required to be treated in the same manner. The learned reference Court held that the landowners were entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- ( Rupees forty thousand only ) per acre for Abi land and Rs. 35,000/- ( Rupees thirty five thousand only ) for all kind of Barani land and Rs. 15,000/- ( Rupees fifteen thousand only ) per acre for Gair Mumkin and Banar Qadim land (acre consisting of 10 ½ Kanals of land). The appellants were also held entitled to other statutory benefits under the Act. The references were allowed with costs. Mr. R.L. Gupta, learned Addl. A.G. Punjab challenged the impugned award primarily on the ground that the Court was not justified in relying upon the sale instances of different village, and that the award relied upon was also regarding the land of adjoining village, whereas the evidence qua the land at village village Thara Uperla Teeka Ladhwal was available, which could not be ignored. This contention of the learned AAG, Punjab cannot be accepted. The learned reference Court did not place reliance on the sale deed produced by the respondent or by the appellants but based the award on the basis of an earlier award passed, with respect to the land which was acquired under the same notification and was of the same quality and kind. The learned reference Court was right in holding that the respondent / landowners were also entitled to the equality with the other landowners for the reason that their land was also acquired under the same notification of same kind though of the adjoining village. No fault, therefore, can be found with the award passed by the learned Addl. District RFA No. 2283 of 1993 5 Judge, Gurdaspur, which may call for interference by this Court, as the findings are based on evidence on record, and can not be said to be arbitrary. Dismissed. No costs. 23.11.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE