R.F.A. No. 905 of 2003 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 905 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.4.2011 Basant Singh and another .. Appellants v. Punjab State and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Anant Kataria, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 905 to 913 and 1060 to 1069 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 905 of 2003. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 7.10.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land situated in villages Behbal Kalan and Dhilwan Kalan, District Faridkot was sought to be acquired by the State of Punjab for construction of a drain. The same was followed by notification dated 12.10.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 14.7.2000, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,80,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed R.F.A. No. 905 of 2003 [ 2] objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,35,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below is not just and fair considering the evidence led on record by the land owners. The acquired land was a portion which was abutting the main Faridkot- Bhatinda road. In fact, with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of the drain, now the land owners do not have approach of their land on road, which has diminished the value of their left over land. The sale deeds (Ex.A1 and Ex. A2) produced on record by the land owners have not been given due weightage in terms of which the value of the land was not less than ` 5,00,000/- to ` 6,00,000/- per acre. There were lot of commercial establishments on the road close to the acquired land it had great potential for being used for commercial purposes. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in fact the case in hand is one in which without there being any reliable evidence on record, the learned court below has enhanced the compensation from ` 2,80,000/- to ` 3,35,000/- per acre. The sale deeds produced on record by the land owners were registered more than 1-1/2 years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which are not relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. In the absence thereof, there was no material before the court to enhance the value of the land from ` 2,80,000/- to ` 3,35,000/- per acre. As far as location of the land is concerned, the facts are not in dispute. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as location of the land is concerned, there is no dispute that it is abutting Faridkot-Bhatinda road. The front portion of the land abutting the main road has been acquired for the purpose of construction of drain. The sale deeds relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners, namely, Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 were registered on 21.6.2000 and 1.8.2000, respectively. It is evident that these were registered more than 1-1/2 years R.F.A. No. 905 of 2003 [ 3] after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7.10.1998 . Accordingly, no reliance can be placed thereupon. The oral evidence produced on record to show the value of the land is not sufficient for the purpose of assessment thereof. The learned court below considering the totality of the circumstances and the location of the acquired land, applied a thumb rule and assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 3,35,000/- per acre which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference for the reason that it is the front portion of the land abutting the road, which has been acquired. Meaning thereby the frontage of the land on road has been taken away, which has certainly diminished the value of the rest of the land of the land owners. The increase awarded by the learned court below is also not very high. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.4.2011 mk