RFA No. 2485 of 1991 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 2.3.2010 1. R.F.A. No. 2485 of 1991 (O&M) Singh Raj and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent 2. R.F.A. No. 2486 of 1991 (O&M) Fakira and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a set of above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of the amount of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2485 of 1991. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 11.2.1984, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired land measuring 4.5 acres, situated in village Machhgar, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for the purpose of construction of road from bye-pass in village Machhgar. The same was followed by notification dated 29.8.1985, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the RFA No. 2485 of 1991 [2] acquired land @ Rs. 48,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned Court below, is quite meager keeping in view the location thereof and its future potentiality. He further submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not in conformity with the evidence placed on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has been determined by the learned Court below on the basis of the material produced by the land owners on record. In fact, the only sale deed (Ex. P3) relied upon by the land owners was for gair mumkin plot, whereas the land in question was admittedly being used for agriculture. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as sale deed (Ex.A.3), relied upon by the land owners is concerned, the learned Court below referred to the same and did not find the same to be worth reliable for the reason that the land forming part therein was a gair mumkin plot, whereas the land in question was for agriculture. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below relied upon the sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) dated 5.5.1984, produced by the State, showing that agricultural land in the village was sold @ Rs. 48,000/- per acre. However, site plan (Ex. R5) on the record shows that the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2), relied upon by the State, is not located in the close proximity of the acquired land, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of road from bye-pass. A perusal of the aforesaid site plan shows that the land in question is surrounding the abadi of the village, meaning thereby quite close to the village, whereas the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) is located at a far off place with no road or abadi in the close vicinity. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the land owners in the present case certainly deserves better treatment and the compensation deserves to be enhanced further which on estimation should be at least at Rs. 55,000/- per acre. Ordered accordingly. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.3.2010 mk