IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18798 of 2007 Date of decision: 21.1.2009 Yad Ram and others. -----Petitioners Vs. Gas Authority of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 30.11.2006, Annexure P-4, passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon under the provisions of the Petroleum Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. 2. Land of the petitioners, which was in Gurgaon district, was acquired for laying down gas pipeline from Jamnagar to Noida. Value of the land was assessed at Rs.10,78,155/- per acre and compensation was awarded to the extent of 10% thereof. On a reference being made, the Additional District Judge did not find any C.W.P. No.18798 of 2007 ground to interfere with the compensation assessed. The petitioners did not lead any acceptable evidence in support of their case. Relevant findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge are as under:- “8. In support of their case, petitioner Yad Ram has no doubt stated that respondents uprooted the land by Bulldozer and uprooted trees for which they have not been paid adequate compensation. He has also stated that petitioner has spent Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- for leveling the acquired land. He has also produced Ayub Khan Halqa Patwari as PW2 who after visiting the spot had prepared report Ex.P2 regarding the loss. 9. Now report Ex.P2 has not proved in any manner the loss suffered by the petitioner as the report as admitted by Aas Mohammad Halqa Patwari pertains to Rabi crops for the year 2004 and has no concern with the awarded amount by the respondents at the time of laying out the pipe lines. From the statement of the petitioner, nothing comes out as to what was the market value of the acquired land from where it could be inferred that petitioner was not paid adequate compensation. There is also no cogent evidence regarding this fact that petitioner has not paid adequate compensation for uprooted trees. There is no evidence as to how many trees were uprooted and what was their value and how much compensation should have been paid for the same. The petitioner has also not produced any person who has charged Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- allegedly spent by petitioners for leveling the 2 C.W.P. No.18798 of 2007 acquired land. No receipt has been produced in the file.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that trees were uprooted, but the Additional District Judge did not find evidence in support of the said stand. 4. Even in the writ petition, there is no material, on the basis of which the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge can be held to be perverse or arbitrary. 5. No ground is, thus, made out for interference. 6. The petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 21, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 3