RFA No. 572 of 1999 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 572 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.4.2009 (O&M) Gurtej Singh and another .. Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. M. Munjal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. O.P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. 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 land measuring 6 kanals 7 marlas situated in village Sappan Wali, Tehsil and District Ferozepur was acquired vide notification dated 26.10.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of construction of Bhangar Shakoor Reclamation Channel. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 45,000/- per acre for Chahi and Chahi Nehri, Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Nehri land and Rs. 25,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. The only issue raised by learned counsel for the land owners in the present appeal is that the quality of land owned by them was determined as Gair Mumkin, whereas the same was Chahi. To substantiate the plea raised by them, reference was made to jamabandi (Ex. A3) produced on record for the year 1990- 91, which depicted that out of 8 kanals 17 marlas of land, 7 kanals and 17 marlas of land was Chahi, whereas only one kanal was Gair Mumkin. It was submitted that out of khasra No. 57/20, as against availabiliy of 2 kanals 13 marlas of land, 2 kanals 12 marlas of land was acquired. It is only this khasra in which part of the RFA No. 572 of 1999 [2] land was shown to be Gair Mumkin. In addition to this, reference was also made to khasra girdawari (Ex. A4) which shows that there was crop sown on some part of the land, whereas on the other part, Safeda was grown. It was further submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in observing that land on which Safeda was grown is considered to be Barani. The submission is that the quality of land is evident from the jamabandi and not from the khasra girdawari. Safeda can be grown even on chahi land. It is a well known fact that Safeda needs a lot of water. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below had not committed any illegality in relying upon the khasra girdawari. Once there was Safeda grown on the land which clearly established that the land was not fit for agricultural purposes for growing normal crop. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners. Jamabandi (Ex. A3) produced on record by the land owners clearly establishes that the entire land except one kanal is shown as Chahi. It is out of total khewat of 8 kanals 17 marlas, 6 kanals and 7 marlas of land was acquired. The only difference is that out of khasra No. 57/20, where the total area available was 2 kanals 13 marlas, 2 kanals 12 marlas was acquired and in this portion of the land one kanal was Gair Mumkin. Considering this fact and finding that other portion of the land acquired had been shown to be Chahi in the jamabandi, the land owners are certainly entitled to the rates as assessed by the Collector for Chahi kind of land for 5 kanals 7 marlas of land, as against the total acquired land of 6 kanals 7 marlas. For one kanal of land, they were entitled to compensation considering the land to be Barani only. As far as reliance on khasra girdawari is concerned, in my opinion, that did not show the quality of land, rather it only depicted as to what crop had been grown on the land at a particular time. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that out of the total acquired land, the quality of 7 kanals and 7 marlas is determined as Chahi land and rest of the land will remain as Barani. The claimants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.4.2009 mk