R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998 [Page numbers] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: October 30 , 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998 Parsini Devi (deceased) through LRs and others .. Appellants v. The Collector, Land Acquisition Colonization Department, Punjab and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 794 of 1998 Saudagar Singh .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 795 of 1998 Bhura Singh (deceased) through LRs and another .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 796 of 1998 Fauja Singh (deceased) through LRs and others .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 1584 of 1998 Harnek Singh .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 1585 of 1998 Darshan Kumar and others .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998 [Page numbers] (7) R.F.A. No. 1586 of 1998 Nohar Chand @ Banarsi Dass .. Appellants v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998. Mr. S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 794, 795 and 796 of 1998. Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 1584 to 1586 of 1998. Mr. O.P.Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. None for respondent No. 3. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 7 appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos. 1978, 794, 795, 796, 1584, 1585 and 1586 of 1998, as the same arise out of common acquisition. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 27.12.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 21 acres, 4 kanals and 9 marlas of land at Boha Town for the establishment of New Anaj Mandi. The same was followed by notification dated 8.6.1989 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 8.10.1990, determined the market value at Rs. 30,000/- per acre for nehri land; Rs. 15,000/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants filed objections, which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, who keeping in view the material placed before him by the parties, awarded Rs. 38,000/- per acre for nehri land, Rs. 18,000/- per acre for barani land and Rs.17,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land as compensation. R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998 [Page numbers] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence produced by them in the form of six sale deeds, out of which three pertained to the acquired land, have not been given due weight by the learned Court below while assessing the value of the acquired land. Relying upon the judgments of this Court in Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991(1) RRR 353; Kehar Singh v. Punjab State, 1992(1) RRR 81; Harjit Singh @ Kaka Singh (died) v. State of Punjab and another, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 484 and The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar v. Smt. Vidya Suri and others, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 631, it was submitted that the land in question had urban potential as it is situated quite close to the abadi area, where the land in the vicinity had already been developed. The categorisation of the the land in chahi and barani was not proper and the entire land should have been assessed at the same rate. Further the submission is that the best piece of evidence is in the form of sale deeds (Ex.A.29, Ex. A.30 and Ex. A.31), which is part of the acquired land. Even if it is considered that these transactions were for a small piece of land, a reasonable cut could be applied. Another fact which requires consideration is that these sale transactions are dated 17.12.1985, whereas the land in question was acquired vide notification dated 27.12.1988. Summing up the arguments, it is further contended that the learned court below has not even discussed the evidence led by the appellants as it had made a vague assessment after merely referring to the evidence led by the parties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land in question was acquired for setting up of a grain market for which the amount of compensation is to be paid by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short, `the Board') and it is the Board only which is the contesting party. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land owners produced in evidence six sale deeds (Ex. A.28 to Ex. A.33). Sale deed (Ex. A.33) is dated 12.5.1995, i.e., nearly seven years after the acquisition. Accordingly, the consideration thereof is totally ruled out. There are three sale deeds (Ex. A.29, Ex. A.30 and Ex. A.31) which form part of the acquired land. The sale deeds are dated 17.12.1985, whereas the land in question was acquired on 27.12.1988. The area forming part of these sale deeds is 3-1/3 marlas each. Average compensation paid therein is Rs. 1,12,000/- per acre, as is noticed by the learned Court below in the impugned award. It is an admitted fact on record that the land is situated close to city which had great potential for urbanisation and in fact, the pressure for that purpose was on the land R.F.A. No. 1978 of 1998 [Page numbers] in question and the other land situated in the vicinity. Thickly populated abadi area was not far off. The land is situated on main Ratia-Budhladha road. The transactions forming part of sale deeds Ex. A29, Ex. A30 and Ex. A31 had taken place on 17.12.1985, whereas the land was acquired more than three years thereafter, i.e., on 27.12.1988. For this period of three years gap, an increase of 25% can very well be granted. Accordingly, adding another sum of Rs. 29,000/- therein, the value of the sale transactions forming part of Ex. A29, Ex. A30 and Ex. A31 would come out to Rs. 1,41,000/- per acre. Now the issue is as to whether this should be taken as the fair value of the acquired land or a reasonable cut is to be applied considering the fact that the transactions were for a very small piece of land, namely, 3x3-1/2 marls each, which were purchased for commercial purposes and located on the main road. Accordingly, in my considered view, a cut of 65% would be reasonable and reducing a sum of Rs. 91,000/- on that account, the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 50,000/- per acre, but this value cannot be for the entire chunk of land for the simple reason that the value on the main road is always higher as compared to the value of the land behind it. Even the sale transactions, referred to above and relied upon, are also forming part of the land situated on the main road. The value so determined above shall be for the land upto the depth of 100 meters from the main road which shall form group `A' and for the rest of the land, the value shall be 10% less than the value determined for the front portion, namely, Rs. 45,000/- per acre. The categorisation of the land into Chahi, Barani and Gair Mumkin is being done away with for the simple reason that it is a land which is quite close to the urbanised area and had great potential for urbanisation and as such could not be considered as an agricultural land. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 30 , 2008 mk