R.F.A. No. 2670 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2670 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2011 Bichint Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2670 and 2757 of 1990, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeal filed by the land owners, the prayer is for enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 26.10.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab sought to acquire 23 kanals and 11 marlas of land, situated in the area of village Nangal Sirsa, District Rupnagar for construction of SYL canal. The same was followed by notification dated 6.12.1982, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 23.1.1986, assessed compensation @ ` 31,304/- per acre for chahi land and ` 23,428/- per acre for barani land. Dissatisfied with the award of the R.F.A. No. 2670 of 1990 [2] Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that for the land pertaining to adjoining villages Dugri and Thali, this court in R.F.A. No. 1263 of 2004—Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 18.8.2011, had assessed compensation @ ` 50,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 25,000/- per acre for barani land over and above the rates as determined by the Reference Court. The land in the present case also being of the adjoining village, the land owners in the present appeal should also be awarded compensation at the same rate. He further submitted that even before the court below, reference was made to the earlier award pertaining to the adjoining villages, which was relied upon. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that placing reliance upon the award of the neighbouring village is not the fair method for assessment of compensation for the acquired land. In fact, there is no independent evidence produced on record by the land owners showing value of the land in the area. The compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre was granted for acquisition of land for construction of SYL canal at that time merely on the basis of an agreement signed between the land owners and the then Chief Minister of Punjab, hence, no case for enhancement is made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. A perusal of the award of the court below shows that earlier awards (Ex. P10 and Ex. P11) placed on record by the land owners were discarded by the court below on the ground that there is no site plan produced on record to show the location of the land pertaining to those awards vis-a-vis the acquired land. The sale deeds produced on record were registered much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The learned court below, while assessing the compensation had placed reliance upon its earlier judgment (Ex. P9) pertaining to the valuation of land acquired in the same village. In the aforesaid judgment, the learned court below had relied upon a judgment of this court in RFA R.F.A. No. 2670 of 1990 [3] No. 2807 of 1987-- State of Punjab v. Khushal Singh, decided on 31.8.1989, granting compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to village Khera Gajju. It has further been noticed by the court below that assessment in the aforesaid case was made on the strength of an agreement between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and the land owners and the location and potentiality of the land pertaining to both the villages was also found to be similar. Reliance sought to be placed by learned counsel for the land owners on the judgment in Makhan Singh's case (supra) is totally misplaced considering the fact that there is nothing on record to show the location of the land pertaining to the villages under consideration in the aforesaid judgment and in the case in hand. For the reasons mentioned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the court below. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 21.12.2011 mk