FAO No. 601 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 601 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.4.2011 Hazura Singh (deceased) through LRs ..... Appellant vs Union of India and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jatinder J. C. Nagpal, Advocate, for the landowners. Mrs. K. K. Kahlon, Advocate, for Union of India. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of FAO Nos. 601 of 1990 and 290 of 1992, as same arise out of common acquisition. By filing appeals the landowners are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the Arbitrator. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Union of India vide J notice dated 27.1.1972, which was published in Punjab Government Gazettee dated 18.2.1972, issued under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Malo Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for use of defence purpose. The Special Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 739.58 per kanal. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. The matter having been referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act, the compensation was determined @ ` 3,000/- per bigha. Dissatisfied with the award of the Arbitrator, the landowners are before this court. FAO No. 601 of 1990 (2) Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below has not awarded just and fair compensation for the acquired land while considering the location of the land. The evidence produced by the landowners in the form of sale-deeds and mutations has not been considered. The learned court below while determining the market value of the acquired land has totally ignored the location and potentiality of the land. The submission was for determination of value keeping in view the location and the evidence led by the landowners on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had awarded much more compensation for the acquired land. The evidence led by the land owners did not justify any further increase. There is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them, is located. Inspite of that the learned court below enhanced the compensation for the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that what the landowners have demanded, the learned court below had awarded the same to them. They have produced sale-deed, Ex. AW1/A, vide which 6 biswas of land was sold on 17.12.1964 at an average price of ` 3,000/- per bigha. The other evidence produced by the landowners also shows that the value of the land in the area as ` 3,000/- per bigha. The other evidence produced on record is in the form of mutations, which cannot be termed as a good piece of evidence to assess the market value of the acquired land. No site plan was produced on record to show the location of the land in the sale-deed and that of the acquired land. Inspite of that the learned court below had determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,000/- per bigha. Keeping in view the evidence led by the landowners, no case for further increase is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed. 18.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge