RFA No. 2314 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2314 of 1992 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Sham Sunder and others ....Appellants. Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The landowners have approached this Court by way of the instant regular first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”). Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab, issued notification dated 7/8.3.1988 under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 5/6.4.1988 under Section 6 of the Act to acquire 1.41 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Lachhru Kalan, Hadbast No. 371, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of the Katha Kheri minor. The proceedings were conducted by the Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Patiala, but on actual measurement, the area acquired came to be 1.55 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 25.1.1989 awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.35,840/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land, besides RFA No. 2314 of 1992 -2- holding them entitled to solatium @ 30% and 12% per annum increase under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. Being not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the amount of compensation and the matter was referred to the District Judge, Patiala. The Land Acquisition Collector had also awarded 20% of the market value as severance charges under Clause thirdly of Section 23 (1) of the Act and the landowners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act with regard to award of severance charges as well. As recorded in the award passed by the reference court, LR No. 113/T/91 of 17.3.1990 was referred with regard to the severance charges and LR No.114/T/91 of 17.3.1990 was referred with regard to the market value of the acquired land. Both the land references came to be decided by the award dated 9.10.1991 which has been impugned in the present appeal and enhancement of compensation has been claimed. The reference court had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the compensation under the award of the Collector is inadequate, if so, to what extent? OPP 2. Relief.” The reference court while deciding issue No.1 in case No. 114/T/91 with regard to the assessment of market value of the acquired land primarily relied on the decision of this Court dated 15.9.1988, Ex.R2, wherein the land of the same village, i.e. Lachhru Kalan, was acquired vide notification dated 13.12.1982. According to the aforesaid RFA No. 2314 of 1992 -3- judgment of this Court, the market value of Chahi land of the said village was determined at Rs.45,000/- per acre in respect of acquisition of 1982. The reference court after allowing per year increase came to the conclusion that Rs.72,000/- per acre for Chahi and Rs.36,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land would meet the ends of justice and accordingly awarded the same. Further, the reference court adverting to the issue of grant of severance charge relied on the judgment of this Court dated 26.3.1987, Ex.R1, and upheld the award of severance charges @ 20% of the market value for the land severed by the Land Acquisition Collector. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants though claimed that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court was inadequate and the same deserves to be enhanced, but could not refer to any evidence on the basis of which it could be concluded that the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court was inadequate or perverse in any manner. No illegality or perversity could be found in the award dated 9.10.1991 passed by the reference court which may warrant interference by this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant regular first appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. September 10, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE