R.F.A. No. 161 of 1999 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 161 of 1999 (O&M) Date of decision: August 23 ,2010 State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Puran Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal and Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocates for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 926, 927 of 1997, 161, 162, 355 to 362 of 1999, 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 of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 161 of 1999. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.3.1984, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 197 kanals and 14 marlas of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Sultanpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for the purpose of use by Fisheries Department. The same was followed by notification dated 13.3.1984, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 3.5.1985, assessed compensation @ ` 7,000/- per acre for Magda land and ` 5,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 14/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that in the present case, the claim made by the land owners in the petition filed before the court below R.F.A. No. 161 of 1999 [ 2] should have been admitted as such, considering the fact that the State did not file any reply in the same, which means that the contents stated in the petition were deemed to be admitted. Further, it was submitted that the most relevant piece of evidence, i.e., sale deed (Ex. P1) was fairly for a large chunk of land, namely, 5436 square yards, which was sold @ ` 20.75 per square yard. The learned court below should have relied upon the same as such without applying any cut, as the genuineness thereof was not in dispute, even if the same was registered about 4 months after the date of acquisition. The land was pertaining to the same village. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below had wrongly relied upon sale deed (Ex. P1). Even if the same was to be considered, the cut should have been more than 40%. He further submitted that even if the written statement was not filed, the claimant is like a plaintiff, who is required to prove the facts stated in the petition and merely non- filing of written statement was not enough to claim more amount of compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, the learned court below has not committed any illegality in relying upon sale deed (Ex. P1), which was for land measuring 5436 square yards, even though the same was registered on 10.7.1984, i.e., four months after the acquisition, as it was for a fairly big chunk of land. Further, it was pertaining to the same village. The land acquired by the State was for use of Fisheries Department, which is located on the road. Even if the land dealt with in sale deed (Ex. P1) has not been pointed out in any site plan, at best, it can be presumed to be a road. The learned court below applied a cut of 1/3rd, which is quite reasonable. However, still even if for arguments sake, it is to be considered that cut has to be applied @ 40% as against 33%, there would be quite marginal difference, considering the fact that the land was acquired about 26 years back and I do not find it reasonable to interfere at this stage. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners as well as by the State are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 23, 2010 mk