RFA No.87 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.87 of 2004 Date of decision: 09.07.2009 Bohar Singh and Anr. ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. --- VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of RFA No.87 of 2004 titled Bohar Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & others and RFA No.88 of 2004 titled Bahal Singh Vs. state of Punjab & Ors., arising out of the same award. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No.87 of 2004. RFA No.87 of 2004 2 By way of these appeals the land-owners have challenged the award dated 7.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar, on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act).. The Appellant-land owners are residents of village Chauntra , Tehsil Muktsar, and land under their ownership was acquired for the construction of Chauntra Distributory RD-0 to 39000. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 11/13 October, 1997 and on 13/14 October, 1997 notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, meaning thereby that urgency provisions were invoked for acquiring the land. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award by assessing the market value of different kinds of acquired land as under: - A. Village Chauntra Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre 1. Nehri Rs.98,400/- 2. Chahi Rs.98,400/- 3. Barani Rs.62,000/- B. Village Sangarana Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre 1. Nehri Rs.81,708/- 2. Barani Rs.50,000/- 3. Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/- C. Village Dodanwali Sr. No. Kind of land Rate per acre 1. Nehri Rs.64,800/- 2. Barani Rs.50,000/- 3. Gair Mumkin Rs.40,000/- RFA No.87 of 2004 3 The learned Reference Court observed that the learned Land Acquisition Collector held, that possession of the land was taken on 15.3.1971. The learned Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, awarded interest @ 9% per annum from 15.3.1971 to 14.3.1972 and @ 15% per annum from 15.3.1972 till the date of pronouncement of the award dated 11.10.1999. The learned Land Acquisition Collector had also proposed compensation for severance @ 25% of the market value of the acquired land as assessed by him, but it was not awarded, as there was no such claim raised. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein they claimed enhancement of market value to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre, besides claiming severance allowances on the plea that due to acquisition of land, their land stands bifurcated into two parts. Severance allowance claimed was @ 50% of the market value. In addition, compensation @ 25% was claimed on the plea that the tube- wells installed by the land owners have gone on other part of the land rendering part of land to be barani for want of irrigation. The interest was also claimed from 15.3.1971, the date when they were said to have been dispossessed. In addition, they sought compensation for crops, trees as well as super-structures and tube-wells. The compensation was also sought for levelling of the land, which according to land owners was got damaged due to digging of the drain. The claim raised by the land owners was contested by the RFA No.87 of 2004 4 Respondent-State. They reiterated that the market value assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was just and reasonable and required no enhancement. They denied the claim of severance compensation and other compensation claimed by the land owners. The existence of trees, tube- wells and super-structures was also denied. It was also the case of the State that the compensation awarded to the land owners was as per the rate fixed in the year 1996, therefore, they were not entitled to interest from the year 1971. As already observed above, the other claims were also denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned reference Court was pleased to frame the following issues: - 1. What was the market value of the acquired land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is not proper. If so, what was the correct market value of the acquired land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act? OPP 2. Whether the land of the petitioner has suffered from severance and whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation on that account?? OPP 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for their crops. If so, to what extent? OPP 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for the trees standing in the acquired land. If so, to what extent? OPP 5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation for loss of access for their unacquired land? If so, to what RFA No.87 of 2004 5 extent? OPP 6. Whether any earth was stacked on the other land of the petitioners while digging out the Canal and whether on that account they are entitle to any compensation? OPP 7. Relief. The appellants have challenged the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector primarily on the ground that the learned reference court had erred in law in accepting the price of the land fixed by the learned Collector by ignoring the evidence led before the learned reference court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that once the evidence was led to prove that the market value of the land was Rs,.5 lacs per acre, the reference court could accept the same in the absence of any evidence to the contrary by the State. It was contended that the finding of the learned reference court on issue No.1 is liable to be set aside and the market value assessed at Rs.5 lacs per acre. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The appellants in spite of having been given the opportunity led no evidence, whatsoever, to prove the market value of the land except for their bald statements. The statement of the claimants in the absence of any other evidence on record could not be accepted to be gospel truth. Learned reference court, therefore, rightly held that the appellants have failed to find any fault with the assessment of the rate fixed by the Collector and held the RFA No.87 of 2004 6 market value assessed by the learned Collector to be the correct market value. It is also pertinent to mention here that the land-owners also failed to prove the loss of crops. In any case, they could not have led any evidence as it was proved on record that the possession of the land was taken in the year 1971. There was, therefore, no occasion for the land- owners to have claimed compensation for their crops or trees etc as alleged. There is not an iota of evidence about the price of superstructure etc. led by the claimants in support of the claim raised. The findings recorded by the learned reference court, therefore, on all the issues deserves to be upheld. Consequently, finding no merit the present appeals are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 09, 2009 rp