R.F.A. No. 1226 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 1226 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.8.2010 State of Haryana and another .... Appellants vs. Atma Ram and others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1226, 1227, 1228, 1968, 2650 and 3563 of 2002 as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State is seeking reduction of compensation. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 20.9.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estates of village Kalirawan, Hadbast No. 96, Tehsil Adampur, for construction of Sidhmukh Feeder. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 17.1.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 24.12.1997 categorised the land into three categories and assessed the compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 70,000/- per acre for Tal and Gair Mumkin kinds of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to learned Court below who on the basis of material placed on record by the parties, determined market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,120/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners as well as the State are in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence produced on record by the landowners. The sale-deed, Ex. P-2, produced by them has been totally ignored. The potentiality and fertility of the land was totally ignored while assessing the fair market value. The acquired land is at a distance of 6 kms from Mandi Adampur which is a fast developing town. Many educational and industrial units are just few R.F.A. No. 1226 of 2002 -2- kilometers of the acquired land. The submission was for determination of market value after considering sale-deed, Ex. P-2. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, submitted that the court below has totally ignored the evidence produced by it and only considered the sale-deeds produced by the landowners. While assessing the market value of the acquired land, no cut has been applied which should have been applied as the land sold vide sale-deeds, Ex. P1 and P-6 was of small portions of land and acquired land was a big chunk. Further it was submitted that the Collector had assessed the fair value as per the quality of the land but the court below has wrongly considered the same as one. It was prayed that the award of the Collector be upheld and that of the learned court below be set aside. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Admittedly, there is no evidence on the basis of the Collector had categorised the land. As per site plan, Ex. R-9, the entire land is situated near the canal, therefore, the categorisation of land by the Collector has been rightly discarded and considered the land as of one type. In so far as valuation of land is concerned, the court below has considered entire evidence led by the parties. The sale-deeds, Ex. P-3, Ex. P-5, and Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-8, are relating to post notification period having been executed after 20.9.1996, therefore, these cannot be considered as such. Other two sale- deeds produced by the State were below the award of the Collector. Sale-deed No. 3497, Ex. P-2, was executed on 12.1.1995, vide which 161 kanals 1 marla of land was sold for a consideration of ` 28,18,375/-. A perusal of site-plan, Ex. R-9 shows that the land in sale-deed, Ex. P-2, is near Abadi Deh of village and at a distance from the acquired land and as such the same cannot be considered for determination of market value of the land in question. The court below has rightly considered the sale-deeds, Ex. P1 and P6, for determination of market value of the acquired land. The land dealt with therein is also not small portion and further the location thereof was quite close viz-a-viz the acquired land. The aforesaid sale- deed having been registered prior in time, the learned court below did not committed any illegality in awarding increase @ 12% per annum thereon. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the award of the court below, accordingly the same is upheld and the appeals filed by the landowners as well as the State are dismissed. 13.8.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge