R.F.A. No. 2248 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 2248 of 1991 (O&M) Land Acquisition Collector and others .. Appellants v. Hazara Singh and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 2551 of 1991 (O&M) Hazara Singh (deceased) through LRs and others ... Appellants v. State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Mr. I. S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2248 and 2551 of 1991, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeal filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State of Punjab, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 1.1.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 13 kanals and 19 marlas, situated in village Manpur, District Ropar was acquired for construction of a bridge over SYL on the crossing of SYL on Ludhiana-Chandigarh road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value for chahi land @ ` 77,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market R.F.A. No. 2248 of 1991 [2] value of the acquired land @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. Besides that, the land owners were also awarded a sum of ` 1,60,377/- as compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to consider the evidence produced on record by the land owners to justify their claim for enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of land. The land, which was acquired for construction of a bridge, is situated on Chandigarh-Ludhiana road and close to Morinda town, which falls within the periphery of Chandigarh. There were commercial establishments close to the acquired land. The land owners had produced on record four sale deeds, out of which two were pertaining to the village, the land of which was acquired. The same have not been considered for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. Even its future potentiality has also been ignored. As far as value of the fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, learned counsel for the land owners fairly submitted that sufficient amount of compensation has already been awarded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that assessment of value in the present case is in terms of the agreement entered into between the land owners and the State of Punjab, whereby the value of land acquired for SYL project was assessed @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. Otherwise, there is no evidence on record even to justify that rate. As far as the value of trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, the submission was that much more amount than the land owners deserved had been granted by the learned court below, which should be reduced, however he has not been able to justify his argument referring to evidence and pointing out error therein. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the appeals filed by the land owners as well as by the State, are liable to be dismissed. As far as value of the land is concerned, the land owners in the present case have been awarded compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre, which is in terms of the settlement arrived at between the land owners and the State. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners that the aforesaid amount was the minimum and considering the location and potentiality of the land, the land owners could be awarded more amount is only to be noticed and rejected for the reason that even the evidence produced on record by the land owners does not justify any further increase. The land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P4, Ex. P5, Ex. P6 and Ex. P8) produced by the land owners has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. Even otherwise, sale deed (Ex. P5) was registered much after the issuance of R.F.A. No. 2248 of 1991 [3] notification under Section 4 of the Act and the sale consideration paid in the sale deed (Ex. P6) pertaining to land of village Manpur was at an average price of ` 1,06,667/- per acre for a small plot of 6 marlas only. Even considering the aforesaid sale deed, without even seeing the location thereof, the award of ` 1,00,000/- per acre as compensation to the land owners cannot be said to be on the lower side. As far as valuation of fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, though the land owners are satisfied with the compensation awarded, however, learned counsel for the State sought to dispute the same. However, he had not been able to point out any defect in the assessment made by the learned court below regarding the number or valuation of the trees considering their age. For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.10.2010 mk