IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.306 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2009 Smt. Sudesh Rani @ Sudesh Kumari & others. -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Naveender P.K. Singh, Standing Counsel for Union of India. ----- ORDER: 1. There is delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. There is also delay of 860 days in refiling the appeal. Delay in refiling has already been condoned. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we condone delay of 188 days in filing the appeal. Heard on merits. 3. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, determining compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.19.10 per square yard and also directing that the appellants will be entitled to statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). LPA No.306 of 2003 4. The land of the appellants was part of the land which was acquired for the purpose of Central Reserve Police Force in pursuance of notification dated 28.5.1985 under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 27.1.1986, awarded compensation at the following rate:- “Rs.32,500/- per acre for Barani land. Rs. 7,500/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.” 5. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.17/- per square yard at uniform rate. On appeal, this Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs.19.10 per square yard. The evidence led by the claimants was tabulated as under:- “Sr No. Exhibit Date of sale Village Area B-B Sale price Price P.S.Y. 1. P-5 18.7.82 Bhogpur 0-18 18,000/- 20/- 2. PW11/A 21.3.84 Bhogpur 1-00 30000/- 30/- 3. PW11/B 04.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/- 4. PW11/C 04.7.83 Bhogpur 1-10 23000/- 23/- 5. PW11/D 24.8.84 Bhogpur 0-10 19000/- 38/- 6. PW11/E 4.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/- 7. PW11/F 4.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/- 8. PW11/G 4.7.83 Bhogpur 1-00 23000/- 23/- 9. PW11/H 9.11.83 Islam Nagar 0-03 4500/- 30/- 10. PW11/J 2.2.83 Islam Nagar 1-05 30000/- 24/-“ 6. Learned Single Judge held that out of 10 sale instances relied upon by the claimants, 7 were inadmissible, as vendors and vendee were not examined and only 3 instances were admissible, of which average came to Rs.22/- per square yard. Having regard to smallness of the area involved as compared to the land acquired, 30% cut on the average was 2 LPA No.306 of 2003 applied and compensation worked to Rs.19.10 per square yard. Reference was made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S. Shivadevamma and others v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another (1996) 2 SCC 62, Ram Piari and another v. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan and others AIR 1996 SC 3140, Chiman Lal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another AIR 1988 SC 1652, Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 and Hasanali Walimchand (dead) by LRs. v. State of Maharashtra 1998(1) All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 120), for concluding that deduction of 30% to 53% or even above is required to be made on account of smallness of the area involved. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the conflict in the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on interpretation of Section 51 of the Act has been resolved in Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya & others AIR 2004 SC 4830 and it has been now held that even in absence of examination of the vendors or vendee the sale deed could be taken into account, if the same was relevant and genuine and in view of this development, the appellants were entitled to 3 LPA No.306 of 2003 enhancement on the basis of sale-deeds which were held to be inadmissible and were not taken into account. 9. Learned counsel for the Union of India opposes this prayer and points out that even if all the sale-deeds are taken into account, the average will at best work out to less than Rs.26/- per square yard and by applying cut of 1/3rd, the compensation will not work out to more than the amount assessed by the learned Single Judge i.e. 19.10 per square yard. 10. We find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the Union of India. 11. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with determination of compensation by the learned Single Judge. 12. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 12, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 4