RFA No. 902 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: May 05, 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 902 of 1994 (O&M) Ram Phal and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 903 of 1994 (O&M) Jai Lal and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 904 of 1994 (O&M) Gopi and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 905 of 1994 (O&M) Baljit and others .. Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 906 of 1994 (O&M) Raj Rani and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents RFA No. 902 of 1994 [2] (6) R.F.A. No. 907 of 1994 (O&M) Raje and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 908 of 1994 (O&M) Gugan and another .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 909 of 1994 (O&M) Chander Bhan and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 910 of 1994 (O&M) Sube Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 911 of 1994 (O&M) Badri Narain .. Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mahender Singh Chahal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned 10 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. RFA No. 902 of 1994 [3] The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 902 of 1994. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land measuring 7.33 acres, situated in village Kheri Jasaur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 20.12.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of G. W. S. Channel from RD 19.9.24 K.M. to 32 K. M. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Nehri land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Rohtak, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value @ Rs. 96,000/- per acre for Nehri land and Rs. 48,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by them on record in the form of various sale deeds, which clearly established that the value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition was more than Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. Reference was made to sale deeds (Ex. P3 and Ex. P4) and awards (Ex. P7 and Ex. P8) for earlier acquisitions carried out in the vicinity. He further submitted that the land was strategically located on National Highway-10 leading from Delhi to Sirsa. There were number of industrial units located in the close vicinity of the acquired land, which was part of National Capital Region. It had great potential for being used as industrial, commercial and residential purposes. While referring to sale deed (Ex. P4), it was submitted that land measuring 2 kanals and 3 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 39,000/-. It was pertaining to village Jasaur Kheri, which is in the vicinity. Sale deed (Ex. P5) is pertaining to the land of village Rohad, which is also just 4-5 kilometers away from the village in question to which the acquired land belonged. Vide aforesaid sale deed, 8 kanals and 14 marlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The sale deed was registered on 15.5.1992. Further reference was made to award (Ex.P7) pertaining to the acquisition of land at Bahadurgarh vide notification dated 22.2.1983, where the value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 21/- per square yard, i.e., more than 5 years prior to the acquisition in the present case. It was submitted that Bahadurgarh is also not located far off from the acquired land. Award (Ex. P8) was also relied upon pertaining to acquisition of land for Rohad bye-pass vide notification dated 15.1.1987, where the value of the acquired land RFA No. 902 of 1994 [4] was determined at Rs. 82,350/- per acre. He further submitted that the court below had merely relied upon sale deed (Ex. P3) and award (Ex. PY). While sale deed (Ex. P3) was pertaining to the land of village Kheri Jasaur and Ex. PY was an earlier award of the Reference Court pertaining to the same acquisition. It was further submitted that the learned court below while determining the compensation for the acquired land came to the conclusion that per acre value, as is shown in sale deed (Ex. P3) registered on 6.6.1986 was Rs. 95,807/-. The acquisition in the present case was carried out about 2-1/2 years thereafter, but still no increase thereon has been granted. On a query by the court, learned counsel for the land owners has not been able to point out the exact location of the land pertaining to the sale deeds and the awards, sought to be relied upon by him, to substantiate that value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned Reference Court, was not just and fair. He was further not able to furnish any information as to whether award (Ex. PY) relied upon by the learned court below pertaining to the same acquisition was subsequently challenged by the land owners therein or not. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a case of practically no evidence. The land pertaining to all sale deeds sought to be relied upon by them has not been pointed out on any site plan on record. It is wrong to suggest that the acquired land was abutting the National Highway-10 as in paragraph 13 of the impugned award, it has been noticed by the learned court below that the same is about 7 kilometers away from the National Highway. In fact, the land is not even abutting the link road from Kharkhoda to Bahadurgarh. Rather, a perusal of the site plan (Ex. P1) shows that it is about 25 acres away even from the link road. Except sale deed (Ex. P3), all other sale deeds and the awards pertained to different villages, which could not possibly be relied upon by the land owners. The submission is that the award of the learned court below is just and fair and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as location of the land is concerned, all what can be seen from site plan (Ex. P1) is that the acquired land is located at a distance of about 25 acres from the road leading from Kharkhoda to Bahadurgarh. No material on record has been pointed out by learned counsel for the land owners showing that the acquired land is abutting the main National Highway -10 – Delhi-Sirsa road. Rather, it has been noticed in paragraph 13 of the impugned award that the same is at a distance of 7 kilometers away from the National Highway. RFA No. 902 of 1994 [5] As far as sale deed (Ex. P4) is concerned, a perusal thereof shows that the same is pertaining to a small piece of land, the location of which is near the abadi, as it mentions that on two sides it abuts gali/rasta. Sale deed (Ex. P5) is pertaining to the land of village Rohad, which is admittedly located at a distance of 4-5 kilometers away from the acquired land. Even otherwise, the sale deed was registered on 15.5.1992, much after the acquisition in the present case. Similarly, awards (Ex. P7 and Ex. P8) pertaining to the acquisition of land for Sector 7, Bahadurgarh and for bye-pass of Rohad are also not relevant, considering their location, which is admittedly at a far off place. In fact, the learned court below has noticed in the impugned award that no evidence was led by the land owners to show that the area had any potentiality for being used as industrial, commercial or residential. At the time of acquisition, it was being used only for agricultural purposes. The learned court below had relied upon earlier award (Ex. PY) pertaining to the acquisition of land vide same notification. Learned counsel for the land owners sought to rely upon sale deed (Ex. P3) independent thereto to submit that they were entitled to increase for the time gap, as the average value per acre paid in the said sale deed was Rs. 95,807/- and there was difference of about 2-1/2 years. Even this contention is also not found to be meritorious, for the reason that a perusal of the sale deed shows that the land dealt with therein is located on a road and further the same has not been pointed out on any site plan on record to compare the value thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land. It may further be noticed that even Gagan Singh (PW2) in his oral statement had submitted that prevalent value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge May 05 ,2009 mk