R.F.A. No. 1017 of 1990 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1017 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.10.2010 Ramesh Kumar ... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Akshay Jain and Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocates for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1017 and 1114 of 1990. 2. The land owners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The facts in brief are that vide notification dated 08.07.1971 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), land measuring 76 Kanals 9 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Bhiwani Lohar, Tehsil and District Bhiwani was acquired for construction of water supply scheme for Bhiwani urban area. This was followed by notification dated 10.09.1971 issued under section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the market value of Chahi and Nehri land @ ` 6,000/- per acre while a sum of ` 3,840/- per acre was assessed for Taal kind of land. The award of the collector was upheld by the learned court below. It is this award of the learned court below, which is impugned in the present set of appeals. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant claimed that value of the land at the time of acquisition was ` 50/- per square yard. Reliance was placed upon judgments Ex. P3 and Ex. P4. Referring to the judgment Ex P3 R.F.A. No. 1017 of 1990 (2) it was submitted that for similarly situated land ` 34,000/- per acre was assessed as the compensation. It was further submitted that even if a cut of 50% is applied therein considering the period or giving benefit of location, land owners in the present case are entitled to atleast ` 17,000/- per acre as compensation. The land in question is located quite close to developed colonies. 5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, argued that the evidence led by the land owners cannot be relied upon as there is no site plan produced on record to show the location of land pertaining to any of the exhibits relied upon by the land owners. Award Ex. P3 otherwise is also not relevant as the same pertain to acquisition of land vide notification dated 02.12.1974. Similarly reliance on award Ex P4 is totally misconceived as the same pertains to acquisition of land vide notification dated 01.08.1986. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 7. There is no evidence produced by the land owners on record to establish that officer's colony, P.W.D. Colony, H.S.E.B. Colony and Government College existed in the vicinity of acquired land when notification under section 4 of the Act was issued. 8. Awards Ex P3 and Ex P4 cannot possibly be relied upon as the land in question was acquired much earlier to the acquisition of land in these awards. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that acquired land was situated outside the Municipal limits when the same was acquired, hence, the appellant can not even take benefit of rates fixed by the Municipal Committee in the year 1985 or 1986, which otherwise also is not a reliable piece of evidence. 9. In view of my above discussions, there being no cogent evidence to substantiate the claim of the appellant, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the land references. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 12.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge