RFA No. 2309 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. RFA No. 2309 of 2003 Date of Decision: October 27, 2009 Jit Singh and another ......... Appellants versus The State of Punjab and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri N.C. Sahni, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Ambica Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab 2. RFA No. 4601 of 2001 Inder Singh ......... Appellant versus The State of Punjab and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Ambica Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab 3. RFA No. 133 of 2002 Amarjit Singh Nalwa (dead) through LRs ......... Appellant versus The State of Punjab and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Ambica Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab RFA No. 2309 of 2003 [2] 4. RFA No. 807 of 2002 Harjaswinder Kaur and others ......... Appellants versus The State of Punjab and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Puneet Bali, Advocate for the appellants Ms. Ambica Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 4601 of 2001, 807 and 133 of 2002 and 2309 of 2003 preferred by the landowners arising out of Award rendered by the learned Reference Court on 02.05.2001. Land measuring 240 Kanals 11 Marlas was sought to be acquired by the State Government for a public purpose i.e., for providing sewer in southern area of Jalandhar City and for providing link road from Pritam Palace to Kapurthala road and to remove congestion from the existing city area, vide notification dated 25.11.1981 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). Notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the Punjab Government gazette on 25.11.1981 and the corrigendum on 5.9.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,28,840/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.80,000/- for Gair Mumkin Chhapar vide his Award dated 15.09.1986. Dissatisfied with the market value so determined, the landowners sought Reference to RFA No. 2309 of 2003 [3] the learned District Judge for determination of appropriate market value of the land acquired. 30 such References came to be decided by the learned Reference Court vide Award dated 02.05.2001. Learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,60,000/- per acre of the entire acquired land i.e. Chahi and Gair Mumkin and Rs.1,20,000/- per acre in respect of land described as Gair Mumkin Chhapar. The landowners were also found entitled to the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act, solatium @ 30%, interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of award and interest @ 15% per annum after one year of the Award by the Collector till payment. Aggrieved against the said Award, four landowners have come up in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the land acquired is situated within the Municipal limits. The purpose of acquisition was to decongest the city. Therefore, the land acquired is a developed land, whereas the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Reference Court have determined the amount of compensation keeping in view the description of land in the revenue record which description is not correct as per site. It is argued that sale instances Exhibits P-26, P-27, P-28, P-29 and P-30 are the relevant sale instances but the learned Reference Court has wrongly ignored them from consideration on the ground that the land subject matter of the aforesaid sale instance relate to the place which was fully developed and construction raised much prior to the date of acquisition. It is contended that such findings are factually incorrect. On the basis of aforesaid sale deeds, the average market value come out Rs.3725/- per Marla as against market value determined by the Reference Court at the RFA No. 2309 of 2003 [4] rate of Rs.1000/- per Marla. Though the sale is of small area and even if suitable deduction is applied, the appellants are entitled to substantially higher enhanced compensation. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court reported as Bhagwat Sarup and another vs. Haryana State and other, 2004(3) PLR 441 and judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Deputy Director Land Acquisition vs. Malla Atchinaidu and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 894. The date of sale, area of land sold, average rate and Khasra numbers where the land is situated reads as under:- Exhibit Date Area Khasra No. Rate (Rs) Exhibit A26 6/10.02.1981 10 Marla and 30 Sq. feet 1821 42,000/- Exhibit A27 10/02/81 10 Marla and 30 Sq. feet 1821 42,000/- Exhibit A28 10/12/80 10 Marla and 30 Sq.feet 3119 40,000/- Exhibit A29/ Exhibit A30 25.04.1980 11 Marla and 123 Sq. feet 1881 32,464/- Though the sale instances are approximate to the date of acquisition but the question which is required to be examined is their proximity with the acquired land and the relevancy to determine suitable compensation of the acquired land. Sohan Lal Patwari appearing as AW11 has deposed that Khasra No.1821 of Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar is about 450 Karams i.e. 2250 feet. He has deposed that Khasra No. 3119 is about 500 Karams i.e. 2500 feet and Khasra No. 1881 is about 200 Karams i.e. 1000 feet from the acquired land. Exhibit A7 is the site plan wherein the acquired land and the property subject matter of the aforesaid sale deeds is reflected. Such plan shows that Khasra No. 1821 is situated on a pucca road leading from Basti RFA No. 2309 of 2003 [5] Sheikh to city. It is close to the developed area wherein many factories are reflected on the northern side of the said Khasra No. The acquired land is within the Municipal limits but it is not comparable with the subject matter of the sale as the acquired land is of Chhappar and in depression about 4 to 6 feet. The sale instances are of a smaller area and is also part of fully developed urban area. There is no sale instance out of the acquired land. Therefore, the sale instance relied upon by the appellants have been rightly ignored from consideration as they are not only far off from the acquired land but the location and the kind is also not comparable with the land acquired. The judgment of this Court in Bhagwat Sarup's case (supra) is not helpful to the appellants as the sale instances are not being ruled out from consideration for the reason that the land is not within the Municipal limit but for the reason that the location of the land acquired is not comparable with the location of the land which is subject matter of sale instances. The judgment of Supreme Court in Malla Atchinaidu's case (supra) is again not helpful to the appellants for the reason that it permits suitable deduction in respect of comparable sale of smaller area. Since in the present case sale instances are not found to be of comparable location. Thus, the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no help to the argument raised by the appellants. Therefore, the sale instances Exhibits A26, A27, A28, A29 and A30 have been rightly excluded from consideration by the learned Reference Court. No other argument is raised. In view of the above, I do not find that any case is made out for RFA No. 2309 of 2003 [6] enhancement of compensation than what has been awarded by the learned Reference Court. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed. October 27, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE