R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: March 19 ,2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002 and Cross Objections No. 23-CI of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Pitamber Parshotam .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 322 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Jagan Nath and others .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 323 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Sadhu Singh @ Sadhu Ram (deceased) .. Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 324 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Sumitra Devi .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 325 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Talinder Singh and others .. Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 326 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Kanwar Jasjit Singh .. Respondent (7) R.F.A. No. 327 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Shri Mansa Ram and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002 [ 2] (8) R.F.A. No. 328 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Barkha Ram (deceased) and another .. Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 329 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Shri Babu Ram (deceased) and others .. Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 330 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Narati Devi (deceased) .. Respondent (11) R.F.A. No. 331 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Salamodin and others .. Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 373 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Ravi Sharma .. Respondent (13) R.F.A. No. 476 of 2002 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Vs. Jagdip Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Mr. M. K. Chouhan and Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocates for the land owners. R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002 [ 3] Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 13 appeals, as the same arise out of the common acquisition. The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. In R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002, cross-objections have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 4.84 acres, situated in village Khangesra, Tehsil Kalka was acquired vide notification dated 6.2.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of road in village Khangesra. The same was followed by notification dated 24.3.1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 52,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 34,666/- per acre for Barani land; Rs. 17,333/- per acre for Banjar land and Rs. 8,667/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below, is totally contrary to the evidence on record. The award of the Collector was quite fair, where for different quality of land, different value was assessed, considering the value of the land in the area. However, still the learned court below directed that the entire land should be assessed at the uniform rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre without there being any reason whatsoever. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the land owners on record, whereby sale deed, Ex. P3, was produced for land measuring 4 kanals at an average price of Rs. 54,000/- per acre. The same was registered on 5.6.1985, about 18 months prior to the date of acquisition and increase @ 12% per annum was required to be granted thereon, whereas the learned court below has merely granted increase of 12%. In fact, there already existed a road, which was laid by the State way back in the year 1981 and the land was acquired just to regularise the same. Meaning thereby that the area, which was acquired, was already abutting a road, as is evident from the award of the Collector itself. It is R.F.A. No. 320 of 2002 [ 4] also relevant that part of the acquired land was forming part of a school. Accordingly, classifying the land as non-potential and treating the same Gair Mumkin and Barani was totally uncalled for. It is only in one appeal that cross objections have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation, otherwise in all other appeals, the State has challenged the impugned award seeking reduction of amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, the acquisition was carried out way back on 6.2.1987 for a small piece of land measuring 4.84 acres for the purpose of laying down a road. The Collector had assessed the value thereof by classifying the same as Chahi, Barani, Banjar and Gair Mumkin. A perusal of the award of the Collector shows that in Gair Mumkin kind of land, the acquisition of land is classified as Gair Mumkin Sadak and Gair Mumkin school. Meaning thereby that the stand of the land owners that the road was already existing is even fortified from the record. Part of the land acquired was also owned by a school. That shows that the area along with the acquired land was populated. Even otherwise, once the road was there, the land had the potential. The genuineness of sale deed, Ex. P3, has not been doubted. The same also shows the value at Rs. 54,000/- per acre, though registered one year and 8 months prior to the date of acquisition. The learned court below while granting increase @ 12% had determined the value of the land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference. As there is no evidence on record to show that increase in the value of the land in the area during the intervening period was more than that rate. Even the finding of the learned court below doing away with the categorisation of the land also does not call for any interference, considering the fact that a road was already existing there and the acquisition was for a small piece of land measuring 4.84 acres more than two decades back in February, 1987. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeals as well as cross objections. Accordingly, same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 19 ,2009 mk