R. F. A No. 776 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 12.12.2008 1. R. F. A No. 776 of 1990 (O&M) Karnail Singh ... Appellant vs The State of Punjab ... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 787 of 1990 (O&M) Ajaib Singh ... Appellant vs The State of Punjab .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 1734 of 1990 (O&M) Karnail Singh and others ... Appellants vs The State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. K. S. Grewal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal nos. 776, 787 and 1734 of 1990 filed by the landowners, against a common award of the learned court below, for enhancement of compensation. However, the facts have been noticed from R. F. A. No. 776 of 1990. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 28.6.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), Punjab Government acquired land in Village Roorgarh, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, for construction of Jhamowali Choe from R. D. 304970 to 310560. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 25.3.1985 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 14,200/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 13,500/- per acre for barani, Rs. 10,000/- per acre for banjar qadim and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for R. F. A No. 776 of 1990 (2) gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 30.11.1989, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15,000/- per acre for chahi land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this court should take judicial notice of the fact that after the repeal of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, sale transactions are normally undervalued to evade stamp duty. Faced with this, the Government has to issue notification directing the Sub-Registrars not to register any sale-deed below Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land as was determined by the learned court below deserves to be increased. However, the appellants in the present case restricts their claim to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- more than what has been granted by the learned court below. He further submitted that possession of the land was taken by the State in October 1979 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.6.1982. Even for this period, the appellants are required to be compensated as they were deprived of their property without even acquisition of land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that just and fair compensation has been paid by the learned court below as was demanded by the appellants at the relevant time. The material placed on record does not justify any further increase. The learned court below has done away with the categorisation of land which was categorised as chahi, barani, banjar qadim, and gair mumkin and determined the compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre, as against different rates awarded by the Collector. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. For the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, the appellants had produced sale-deed, Ex. P-2, dated 7.6.1982 on record, whereby 16 kanals was sold for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- at an average price of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. It has also come on record that land pertaining to sale deed, Ex. P-2, is located quite close to the acquired land. By placing reliance thereon, the learned court below has granted compensation to the landowners @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre by considering even the land of the claimants of LR. 328/52T (Gajjan Singh etc.) LR No. 334/65T )Karnail R. F. A No. 776 of 1990 (3) Singh) LR. No. 330/56T (Karnail Singh etc.) and LR No. 334/58T (Ajaib Singh) to be chahi as the same was considered by the Collector as barani. In addition to this, severance was also required to be paid to some of the landowners with regard to which there is no challenge in the appeal. As regards the compensation for the period the possession of the land was taken till the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, a perusal of the para 2 of the impugned award shows that for the intervening period from October 1979 to April 1982, the landowners were paid compensation @ 6% per annum. The compensation so paid for this was never challenged before the learned court below. Even otherwise, 6% compensation for the intervening period cannot be said to be unjustified which would require further increase. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the appeals, the same are accordingly dismissed. 12.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge