IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.1371 of 1993 Date of decision:16.01.2009 State of Punjab ....Appellant versus Ajmer Singh (died) through his L.Rs. ....Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. Present: Mr. N.S.Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of five Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.1371, 1372, 1373, 1374 and 1375 of 1993 filed by the State of Punjab against the award of the Additional District Judge, Ropar, dated 07.05.1992. Since, identical questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, the facts are being taken from R.F.A. No.1371 of 1993. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'), dated 03.10.1985 followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6, land of Village Lakhmipur was acquired for the construction of SYL canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide his award No.118/R- R.F.A. No.1371 of 1993 - 2 - SYL, dated 29.06.1986 awarded compensation of the acquired land given as under:- Chahi Rs.70,200/- per acre Barani Rs.50,000/- per acre Banjar Qadim Rs.45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/- per acre. The land owners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to them. Therefore, they preferred objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred by the Collector to the Civil Court, Ropar, for adjudication. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The land owners examined Pritam Singh (PW-1) son of Sardara Singh, Pritam Singh (PW-2) one of the claimant and Harinder Singh, Patwari, Circle Lakhmipur (PW-3) and produced on record judgment Ex.P-1; Sale Deed, Ex.P-2; Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris, Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5 and judgment of the learned District Judge, Ropar, dated 04.02.1992 (Ex.P-6). As against this, respondents produced two copies of Sale Deeds, Ex. R-1 and Ex.R-2. Learned Reference Court relied upon Ex.P-6, copy of the judgment of learned District Judge, Ropar, dated 04.02.1992, which pertains to the Village Lakhmipur itself. It was found that the land covered by this judgment was similarly located which is involved in the present acquisition. In the said case, the learned District Judge determined the market value of Chahi land @ Rs. One lac per acre and for Barani land @ Rs.75,000/- per acre. He has also referred to an agreement, copy Mark 'A' under which a settlement was arrived at between the members of the Action Committee who principally belonged to District Ropar and the then Chief Minister, R.F.A. No.1371 of 1993 - 3 - Punjab, according to which it was decided that chahi land acquired for SYL canal, Punjab shall be assessed @ Rs. One lac per acre. The learned Reference Court also relied upon a decision in the case of 'State of Punjab versus Surjan Singh etc. 1990 (1) PLR-278, in which it was held that the settlement arrived at between the then Chief Minister, Punjab and the Members of the Action Committee,is a relevant piece of evidence. Thus, relying upon the judgment Ex.P-6 as well as judgment in the case of State of Punjab versus Surjan Singh (Supra), compensation @ Rs.One lac per acre for chahi land and Rs.75,000/- per acre for Barani land was determined besides awarding the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amendment Act. Learned State counsel has submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon the settlement although the acquired land is only an agricultural land, therefore, the compensation assessed is excessive. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. In the earlier case Ex.P-6, land which has been acquired was also agricultural and as a matter of fact, all the land which has been acquired for the construction of SYL canal is agricultural in nature. Therefore, I do not find any error in the well reasoned award of the learned Reference Court. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed and the award of the learned Reference Court is upheld. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 16.01.2009 sanjeev