RFA No. 2101 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2101 of 1998 Decided on : 25.8.2008 Bal Krishan and another ....Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana & Another ....Respondent (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This order shall dispose of 20 cases i.e. RFA Nos. 2101, 1604, 1640,1897, 2098 to 2100, 2120, 2224, 2472, 2474 to 2482 and 2915 of 1998 arising out of the same notification as common question of law and facts are involved. Briefly stated the facts are that vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 (for short 'the Act'), land measuring 41.547 acres of land in village Tajewala was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 31.7.95 published in the Government Gazette on 15.8.95 followed by declaration under Section 6 published on 27.11.95 for the public purpose namely for the construction of Hathni Kund Barrage on the right side of Jagadhri Paonta Sahib Road. The Collector vide his award compensated the land owners by assessing the market value at the rate of Rs. 68000/- per acre for Barani and Rs. 34,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim. The land owners filed objections under Section 18 which were referred to the Civil Court where a claim was made to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre, besides the statutory benefits, which was resisted by the respondent-State RFA No. 2101 of 1998 2 on the ground that the Collector has assessed fair value of the land because the acquired land is ordinary agricultural land having no potential value. In their evidence, the claimants had examined Smt. Kaneez Fatma as PW1, Rulia as PW2, Vidya Sagar as PW3, Fateh Mohd. as PW4, Bal Kishan as PW5, Shiv Kumar as PW6 and two other witnesses as PW7 and PW8 apart from tendering documentary evidence Ex. P-1 sale deed, Ex.P.2 expert report, Ex. P3 site plan, Ex. P.4 sale deed, Ex. P.5 report, Ex. P.6 sale deed, Ex. P.7 Jamabandi, Ex. P.8 Khasra girdawari, Ex. P.9 Akas sajra, Ex. P.10 Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 mutation no. 571, Ex. P.11 khasra girdawari for the year 1993 to 1996, Ex. P.12 Akas sajra and Ex. P.13 evidence. On the other hand, respondent had examined Subhash Chand JE from HKB, who tendered certificate Ex. R.1 to Ex. R.4 and in rebuttal the claimants had tendered certified copies of mutation Ex. P.14 and Ex. P.15 and Khasra Gardawari Ex. P.16. After considering the evidence on record, the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide his award dated 3rd March, 1998 assessed the market value at the rate of Rs. 87,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 43,500/- per acre for Banjar land besides awarding statutory benefits under Section 23 (1) (A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana while arguing on behalf of the State of Haryana raised only one argument that the Court below had erred in law in rejecting the sale deeds Ex. R. 1 to Ex.R.3 on the ground that the same cannot be looked into because neither the vendor nor the vendee of these sale deeds have been examined. He has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer versus V. Narasaiah' J.T. 2001 (3) SC 157, 'Ranvir Singh and another versus Union of India' J.T. 2005 (8) SC 253 and 'Cement Corporation of India Limited etc. etc. versus Purya and others etc' J.T. 2004 (8) SC 327 and argued that law laid down in the RFA No. 2101 of 1998 3 case of Inder Singh and others etc. versus Union of India J.T. 1993 (3) SC 653 and P.Ram Reddy and others versus Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad' 1995 (2) SCC 305 in which it was propounded that High Court should not have taken into account the sale price shown in the sale deed since vendor and vendee connected with the sale have not been examined, had been overruled in the aforesaid decision in the case of Land Acquisition Officer (supra). It was then submitted that the Court below should have considered the sale deeds Ex. R. 1 to Ex. R.3. In this regard, counsel for the land owners has submitted that even if sale deeds Ex. R. 1 to Ex. R.3 are taken into consideration in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court still the amount determined under the sale deeds is less than the award given by the Collector, therefore, in any case, they have to be ignored. This vital position has been admitted by the counsel for the State of Haryana. Therefore, I do not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the State of Haryana that if sale deeds Ex. R.1 to Ex.R.3 be considered , the compensation would have been less than what has been awarded. On the other hand, counsel for the land owners has argued that the Court below has erred in not relying upon the sale deed Ex. P.6 which was fetching more value as the total rate was coming out to the tune of Rs. 1,28,000/- per acre. In this regard, counsel for the State has argued that Ex. P.6 pertains to 10 marlas of land only which was sold for residential purposes. Therefore, it cannot be equated with the huge chunk of land measuring 48 acres which is Barani and Banjar Kadim acquired for the purposes of constructing Hathni Kund Barrage. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the compensation that has been assessed by the Court below as reflected in para 22 of the impugned judgement which is reproduced as below, is fair and just compensation:- “Vide sale deed Ex.P.1, 54K-12M was sold at the rate of Rs 70,017/- per acre. Out of this land 32 kanals 1 Marla land was Barani land whereas 22 RFA No. 2101 of 1998 4 kanals 11 Marlas was Banjar land. If the price is taken to be of the Chahi land, the same comes to Rs. 1,16,000/- per acre. Taking the principle of law that the Chahi land represents value of 16 Annas and Barani land is of the value of 12 Annas and Banjar to be of 6 Annas of value if the remaining factors remain the same, on the same principles the value of the Barani land comes to Rs. 87,000/- per acre (Rs. 1,16,000 x ¾) and the value of Banjar land comes to Rs. 43,500/-.” In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit either in the appeals filed by the land owners or in the appeals filed by the State of Haryana. Therefore, both are hereby dismissed. No costs. August 25, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge