R.F.A. No. 2833 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 08, 2008 1. R. F. A. No. 2833 of 1994 (O&M) Sujan Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent 2. R. F. A. No. 2834 of 1994 (O&M) Dharamvir and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent 3. R. F. A. No. 2835 of 1994 (O&M) Smt. Sharbati ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent 4. R. F. A. No. 2836 of 1994 (O&M) Mata Din ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent 5. R. F. A. No. 2837 of 1994 (O&M) Ram Avtar and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent 6. R. F. A. No. 2910 of 1994 (O&M) Hira Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent 7. R. F. A. No. 2911 of 1994 (O&M) Smt. Chameli and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent 8. R. F. A. No. 2943 of 1994 (O&M) Surinder and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2833 of 1994 [2] 9. R. F. A. No. 93 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents 10. R. F. A. No. 94 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 11. R. F. A. No. 95 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 12. R. F. A. No. 96 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 13. R. F. A. No. 97 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 14. R. F. A. No. 98 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 15. R. F. A. No. 99 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 16. R. F. A. No. 100 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 17. R. F. A. No. 101 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 2833 of 1994 [3] 18. R. F. A. No. 102 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 19. R. F. A. No. 113 of 1995 (O&M) Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents 20. R. F. A. No. 115 of 1995 (O&M) Ram Avtar and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondents 21. R. F. A. No. 224 of 1995 (O&M) Satish Kumar and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondents 22. R. F. A. No. 304 of 1995 (O&M) Mata Din and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.A. Yadav and Mr. Sunil Rana, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 22 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 2833 to 2837, 2910, 2911, 2943 of 1994, 115, 224 and 304 of 1995 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 93 to 102 and 113 of 1995 have been filed by Indian Vaccine Corporation Limited seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No.2833 of 1994. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 865 kanals and 2 marlas, R.F.A. No. 2833 of 1994 [4] situated in village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired vide notification dated 19.2.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development of the area as industrial and setting up of vaccination complex. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 60,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for the remaining categories of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 81,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to consider the material placed on record by them in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P7) for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land and has merely relied upon an earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition carried out in the vicinity vide notification dated 22.3.1985 and considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated 19.2.1988, increase @ 12% per annum was given. The submission is that the land was strategically located on National Highway No. 8. It adjoins the approach road from National Highway No. 8 to Village Nainwal. Merely because the area dealt with in sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P7) was small, a reasonable cut could very well be applied for arriving at fair value of the acquired land. The reason given by the learned court below for rejecting the sale deeds produced by the land owners was that the vendees and the vendors had not been produced, which is not in conformity with law, as certified copies of the sale deeds were admissible as such. Reference was made to sale deed (Ex. P1) dated 15.12.1984, whereby 2 kanals and 18 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 44,000/- at an average price of Rs. 1,21,379/- per acre and sale deed (Ex. P2) dated 15.3.1985, whereby 2 kanals of land was sold for Rs. 49,000/- at an average price of Rs. 1,96,000/- per acre. Similar was the position with regard to sale deed (Ex. P3) which is dated 18.3.1985. Vide sale deed (Ex. P4) executed in 1986, 2 kanals and 6 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 1,70,000/- at an average price of Rs. 4,85,700/- per acre. Sale deeds (Ex. P5 to Ex. P7) were executed after the acquisition of land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has not committed any illegality in determining the fair value of the acquired land by placing reliance upon an earlier award for acquisition of the land in the vicinity in the absence of any other cogent evidence produced by the land owners in support of their claim. He further submitted that earlier award (Ex. P10), relied upon by the learned court below, was subject matter of further R.F.A. No. 2833 of 1994 [5] appeals wherein the same was upheld, meaning thereby that no further increase in the value of the land is possible. Another argument raised by the learned counsel is that even the sale deeds, produced by the land owners, cannot be considered as such for the simple reason that there is no site plan on record to show the location of the same vis-a-vis the acquired land to enable the court to judge its comparability with the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below discussed the sale deeds produced by the land owners. Sale deeds (Ex. P5 to Ex. P7) were registered in the year 1989-90 and the acquisition in the present case being in the year 1988, the same were rightly discarded. As far as sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4) are concerned, no doubt, the same were registered before the acquisition of the land and according to learned counsel for the land owners, the same pertained to village Manesar, where the land in question is situated. However, still he could not refer to any site plan on record to show the location thereof. In the absence of that, it would not be safe to rely upon them for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, even if the learned court below had not considered the same for the reason that vendors and the vendees had not been produced. In such a situation, if the learned court below had relied upon the award pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification dated 22.3.1985 in village Manesar, the same cannot be said to be unreasonable. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present set of appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 08, 2008 mk