RFA No.630 of 1993 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No.630 of 1993 Decided on November 17,2008. State of Punjab ---Appellant. vs. Bala Singh --- Respondent Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the appellant None for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of 13 cases i.e. RFA Nos. 630,3534, 631,632, 633,634,635,636,638,3535, 3536,3537 and 3538 all of 1993, filed by the claimants/landowners as well as the State of Punjab,as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The agricultural land measuring 4.46 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Dharamgarh, Hadbast No. 120, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was proposed to be acquired by the State of Punjab for the construction of Katha Kheri minor vide notification issued on 29.2.1988 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') RFA No.630 of 1993 2 followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, on 21.3.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector (SYL), Canal Project Punjab,Patiala,vide his award No. 363/P-SYL dated 21.4.1989, classified the acquired land into three categories and determined the compensation as under:- Class of land Area Rate per acre Chahi: 19B-19B Rs.60,000/- Barani: 0.19 Rs.50,080/- Gair Mumkin: 0-6 Rs.35,000/- The land owners/claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act in which it was pleaded that value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2 lacs per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and had also claimed Rs.10,000/- as damages to the crop and Rs.50,000/- for severance charges. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the State of Punjab that land in all the cases was Chahi and the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded adequate compensation after considering all the facts including nature, location and potential value of the acquired land. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Surinderpal Singh Patwari Halqa, Kutakheri appeared as AW1 and produced Aksh Shajra Ex.AW1. He stated that land of village Mandiana and village Dharamgarh adjoins each other and land of both the villages are of the same quality. Gurdev Singh claimant appeared as AW2, who stated that distributory for which the land has been acquired was to start from SYL canal at village Mandiana which would pass through village Dharamgarh, RFA No.630 of 1993 3 then to village Sanaulian and thereafter to other villages. He also deposed that land of village Mandiana was acquired for the construction of aforesaid distributory and land of villages Dharamgrh and Mandiana acquired for the distributory have the same potentiality. On the other hand, the respondent- State examined Hazura Singh Patwari from the office of Land Acquisition Collector, SYL, Patiala as RW1, who produced Aks-Masavi of the acquired land as Ex.R1 and the sale deeds of the acquired land as Ex R2 to Ex. R4. In the cross examination, this witness stated that village Mandiana adjoins village Dharamgarh and the main SYL canal passed through Mandiana whereas land of village Dharamgarh was acquired for distributory. The land of village Mandiana and that of Dharamgarh are of almost equal value and potentiality. It was admitted that the Collector while preparing the award did not rely upon the sale deeds Ex. R2 and Ex.R3. The learned Reference Court has referred to one sale deed relied upon by the respondent-State of Punjab dated 13.7.1987 of village Dharamgarh which is pertaining to land measuring 8 bighas 2 biswas by which the land has been sold for Rs.23704/- per acre and also two other sale deeds dated 08.5.1987 and 30.9.1987 of village Sohoron which is an adjoining village to village Dharamgarh by which the land has been sold @ Rs.19302/- and Rs. 36000/- per acre respectively. The learned Court below found that the sale deeds were pertaining to Chahi land and were fetching the maximum amount @ Rs. 36,000/- per acre whereas the Land Acquisition Collector had already awarded Rs.60,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court relied upon the judgment Ex.A2 of this Court dated 3.11.1988 rendered in the case of Chetan Singh vs. State of Punjab in respect of land situated in village Mandiana acquired in the year 1982 in RFA No.630 of 1993 4 which the following rates were determined:- Chahi @ Rs 15,000/- per bigha Rausli @ Rs. 7500/- per bigha Gair Mumkin@ Rs.6000/- per bigha. The learned Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, found that the land of village Mandiana and that of village Dharamgarh are adjoining each other and were acquired for the purpose of distributory connecting SYL canal. It was also found that the land of village Mandiana was acquired in the year 1982 vide notification dated 13.12.1982,whereas land of village Dharamgarh was acquired in the month of March,1988, but no increase was allowed @ 12% per annum from 1982 to 1988 on the ground that from the three sale deeds of village Dharamgarh and two sale deeds of village Sohoron of the year 1987, no rising trend in the market value was noticed therefrom and while relying upon the award of the High Court passed in RFA No.829 of 1986 Chetan Singh vs. State of Punjab, compensation of the acquired land was redetermined by the learned Reference Court as under:- Chahi: Rs.72000/- per acre Barani:Rs.50080/- per acre Gair Mumkin:Rs.35000/- per acre. Since the reference Court has based its award on the previous award of the High Court passed in RFA No.829 of 1986 Chetan Singh vs. State of Punjab, pertaining to the same village Dharamgarh, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality in the award of the learned Reference Court nor any one has put in appearance on behalf of RFA No.630 of 1993 5 the landowners/claimants in order to claim compensation more than the award of the learned Reference Court. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the State of Punjab or in the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants. Therefore, maintaining the award of the learned Reference Court, the appeals filed by the State of Punjab as well as the landowners/claimants are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. November 17,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge