RFA No. 541 of 1995 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 541 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.2.2011 Anokh Singh and another ...Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. K. Singla, and Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 541, 1074, 1081, 1183 to 1186, 1214 to 1216, 1266, 1618 to 1620, 1814, 2080 and 2125 of 1995, arising out of same acquisition. The landowners have filed the appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State is seeking reduction thereof. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Government of Punjab, Department of Rural Development and Panchayats, Chandigarh, vide notification dated 14.7.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land measuring 77 kanals 2 marlas situated in village Brahman Majra, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib, District Patiala (now District Fatehgarh Sahib), for the Cattle Fair Ground. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 29.6.1989 published on 6.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 30.8.1991 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,28,000/- per acre for chahi/ banjar and ` 5,53,160/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners RFA No. 541 of 1995 -2- filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 12.12.1994 assessed the market value of the acquired land ranging from ` 2,925/- per marla to ` 5,850/- per marla. Now both the parties are in appeal before this court impugning the award of the learned court below. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the clinching evidence produced on record in the form of sale-deeds pertaining to the acquired land itself. Though there were four sale-deeds, however, three out of them, i.e. sale-deeds Ex. A-1, Ex. A-2 and Ex. A-5 which were registered on 3.6.1985, 4.6.1985 and 13.10.1987 respectively, were pertaining to the acquired land. In fact, the value shown in sale-deed, Ex. A-1 and A-2 is correct whereas sale-deed, Ex. A-5 was registered at a lesser rate just with a view to avoid payment of stamp duty. For the purpose of valuation of land, the same should be ignored. Considering the chunk of acquired land and its location, in fact, no cut as such is required to be applied in the value as is shown in the aforesaid sale-deeds. Further the landowners should be granted increase @ 15% per annum on the value shown in the sale-deeds from the date of registration till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. As far as location of the land is concerned, it was submitted by learned counsel for the landowners that it is strategically located just at a distance of 100 yards from G. T. Road (National Highway No. 1). The total acquired land is 77 kanals 2 marlas. The entire area is on the road leading from G. T. Road to Fatehgarh by-pass. The area was already developed and was good for being used for commercial purpose. The people who had purchased the land there had constructed commercial establishments. That is evident even from sale-deed, Ex. A-1 and Ex. A- 5 produced by the landowners on record. It was further submitted that even the calculation made by the learned court below while assessing the price, is also incorrect. The landowners in RFA No. 1215 of 1995 has been awarded even less than the cost price. RFA No. 541 of 1995 -3- On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that considering the smallness of plots dealt with in the sale-deeds to be relied upon by the landowners, a cut is required to be applied for the purpose of assessment of compensation. In fact, the award of the learned court below is already on the higher side, even if considered in the light of evidence produced by the landowners. Though there is no evidence produced by the State as such, the increase @ 15% per annum claimed by the landowners from the time of registration of sale-deeds till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act is on higher side. The same should not be more than 6% per annum even if awarded. No documentary evidence led by the State was referred to at the time of hearing. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land, the fact is not in dispute as has been stated by learned counsel for the landowners, namely, that it is just 100 yards from the G. T. Road (National Highway No. 1). Petrol pump, grain market, rice shellers, body builders workshops and railway line are also located close to the acquired land. The acquired land is located on the Fatehgarh Sahib bye-pass. Another fact which is not in dispute is that there are three sale-deeds produced on record, the land pertaining to which is forming part of the acquired land. The detail of these sale-deeds is given below:- Exhibit Area in sale- deed Date of registration Consideration paid in ` Price per marla in ` A-1 10 marlas 03.06.1985 48,000/- 4,800/- A-2 10 marlas 04.06.1985 42,000/- 4,200/- A-5 14 marlas 13.10.1987 40,000/- 2,857/- The aforesaid sale-deeds are the best piece of evidence for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. The genuineness thereof is not in doubt. Considering the fact that the sale- deeds were registered prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in my opinion, increase @ 12% deserves to be added thereon and considering that factor, the value of the land dealt with in the RFA No. 541 of 1995 -4- aforesaid sale-deeds comes out as under:- Exhibit Consideration paid in ` Difference of time between registration of sale-deed and issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act value assessed after adding 12% Value per marla in ` A-1 48,000/- 3 years 1 month i.e. 37% 65,760/- 6,576/- A-2 42,000/- 3 years 1 month i.e. 37% 57,540/- 5,754/- A-5 40,000/- 9 months i.e. 9% 43,600/- 3,114/- Considering the location of the land where small plots were being sold for commercial and residential purposes, and the consideration paid therein, in my opinion, due consideration has been given to the evidence produced on record by the landowners, in the absence of any documentary evidence led by the State and value of the acquired land has been assessed, which in my opinion, does not call call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 15.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge