R.F.A. No. 2514 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2514 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.9.2010 Gurbachan Singh and others .... Appellants vs The Punjab State .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2514, 2515, 2516, 2518, 4179 and 3623 of 2002, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement in compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that land situated within the revenue estate Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, was acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 11.4.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Act for establishment of New Grain Market at Kalanaur. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 14.10.1993 assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 70,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections, which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 26.11.2001 assessed the market value of the acquired land at ` 2,00,000/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence produced on record by the appellants has not been considered by the learned court below. The sale-deeds, Ex. A-2 to A-6, have been totally ignored. The average sale consideration paid therein was ` 16,00,000/- per acre. A reasonable cut can be R.F.A. No. 2514 of 2002 -2- applied even if the same were of small size. Considering the area of the sale-deeds, even the acquired land was not a big chunk. It was further submitted that the acquired land is situated between two main roads. There are many commercial as well as educational establishments namely Industrial Training Institute, High School etc. near the acquired land. It was submitted that the acquired land was located within the municipal limits and had great future potential. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no site plan has been placed on record by the landowners to show the location of the acquired land. The sale-deeds sought to be relied upon by the landowners cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land as the location thereof is also not known. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Considering the material placed on record by the parties, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the court below does not call for any interference. No site plan has been placed on record by the landowners to show the location of the land of the sale-deeds, Ex. A-2 to Ex. A-6 viz-a-viz the acquired land. In the absence of such an evidence, this court is not in a position to assess the market value of the acquired land after comparing the same with the sale-deeds produced by the landowners. In the absence of location of the acquired land, the learned court below had assessed the market value by applying guess work. No appeal has been filed by the State against the impugned award. Considering the fact that the court below has awarded sufficient increase in the absence of any site plan to show the location of the acquired land as well as the sale-deeds, no case for interference by this court is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 28.9.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge