RFA No.1920 of 1994 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1920 of 1994 Date of Decision: 13.2.2009 Amin Chand and others ..Appellants. Vs. State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL) By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of 9 Regular First Appeals of village Balamgarh bearing Nos.1920 of 1994, 1236, 550, 551 and 559 of 1995, 2687 to 2689 of 1994 and 2765 of 1994 all filed by the claimants aggrieved against the award of Additional District Judge, Ropar dated 6.12.1993 as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from RFA No.1920 of 1994. Land of village Balamgarh, Hadbast No.386, Tehsil and District Ropar was acquired for the construction of upper branch canal vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') followed by notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and published in Punjab Govt. Gazette on 14.3.1988. The Land RFA No.1920 of 1994 -2 - Acquisition Collector (for short `the Collector') vide his award dated 15.2.1990 classified the acquired land into two categories, namely, Barani land and Gair Mumkin/orchard land. The Collector awarded compensation @ Rs.32,094/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.20,752/- per acre for Gair Mumkin/orchard land. The aggrieved land owners, however, claimed compensation @ Rs.2 lacs per acre in their Objections filed under Section 18 of the Act. In order to substantiate their case, they led oral as well as documentary evidence. Roop Chand one of the claimants appeared as AW1 and deposed that the acquired land was Chahi and has been wrongly classified as Barani land. He further deposed that the acquired land was irrigated by tubewell water and is at a distance of about 3 killas from Link road from Ropar to village Mianpur and villages Mianpur, Panjola, Panjoli, Burjwala, Jabarhera adjoin village Balamgarh. He stated that land of this quality in village Balamgarh was not less than the value of Rs.10 lacs per acre. The claimants also relied upon a copy of judgment (Ex.A1) dated 23.11.1992 passed by the District Judge, Ropar pertaining to land of village Jabarhera in which Collector had awarded Rs.22,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs.19,411/- per acre for Banjar land and Rs.20,166/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The learned District Judge, Ropar in the said case awarded Rs.75,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs.65,000/- per acre for Banjar land and Rs.60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Copy of Aks Shajra (Ex.A2) was also placed on record to show location of the land of village Balamgarh which was found to be adjoining villages Mianpur, Panjola, Panjoli, Burajwala and Jabarhera. The Reference Court, relied upon copy of judgment Ex.A1 and determined the compensation for the acquired land. RFA No.1920 of 1994 -3 - Before the compensation could be determined, a fact was recorded in para 7 of the impugned judgment that the entire acquired land was Barani land. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that there was an agreement between the then Chief Minister, Punjab and Members of the Action Committee that for acquisition of land for construction of SYL Canal, at least Rs.One lac per acre shall be awarded to the claimants. On the contrary, Sh.K.S.Dadwal, Addl.AG Punjab has vehemently contended that the said agreement was in respect of Chahi land and not for all kinds of land. I have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellants may be attractive but is devoid of any merit for the reason that agreement entered into between the then Chief Minister, Punjab and members of the Action Committee was only in respect of Chahi land for which State of Punjab decided to give Rs.One lac per acre. There was no such agreement that the amount of Rs.One lac shall be awarded for all types of land which was acquired for the construction of SYL canal. As it is apparent from the record that the entire land is of the nature of Barani, therefore, the aforesaid argument of the counsel for the appellants would not prevail. No other argument has been raised by the counsel for the appellants. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in these appeals in order to interfere with the well considered Award of the Additional District Judge, Ropar dated 6.12.1993 whereby Rs.75,000/- per RFA No.1920 of 1994 -4 - acre has been awarded for Barani land in terms of the order passed in the judgment Ex.A1. Thus, all the appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 13.2.2009 Judge Meenu