R.F.A. No. 1327 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular First Appeal No. 1327 of 1986 Date of decision: September 01, 2008 Kanwar Bhan Bhatia .. Appellant v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land-owner is in appeal against the award of the learned Court below, whereby in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), no enhancement was ordered and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') was upheld. Briefly, the facts are that the land of the appellant was acquired vide notification dated 27.4.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Act for construction of Warehouse by Haryana Warehousing Corporation. The land is situated in Village Jundla (Karnal). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.6.1979. The Collector vide his award dated 28.2.1983 awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000/- per acre as market value of the land. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellant-land owner filed objections under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Court below did not find the objection to be meritorious and accordingly, dismissed the same upholding the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of the Collector as well as of the learned Court below is totally contrary to the material on record. He submitted that the acquired land abutted the metalled road on two sides. It is situated at a distance of 150 yards from the abadi of R.F.A. No. 1327 of 1986 [2] village Jundla. Residential abadi, school and petrol pump are quite close to the land in question. Grain market was at a distance of about one furlong from the acquired land. He further referred to the findings recorded by the Collector while determining the market value of the land, wherein he also admitted that the land is located quite close to the village abadi and there were development activities in the village in the neighbourhood of the land in question. Learned counsel referred to sale deed dated 15.12.1975 (Ex. P2), wherein 10 marlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Relying upon the said sale-deed, the submission is that it was a sale which had taken place almost four years before the acquisition of the land and the appellant would be further entitled to increase thereof at least @ 10% per annum. He also referred to site plan (Ex. P.3) showing where the land in question is situated and also the development and other activities in the vicinity including other existing structure are there. He submitted that the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition thereof. He further claimed that as front portion of the land had been taken away, the appellant is also entitled to severance on that account. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that a perusal of the award shows that the value of the land in the area before the issuance of the acquisition notification was considered and the award was based thereon. Merely an isolated transaction relied upon by the appellant cannot be made the basis for determination of the value of the land. As regards severance, he submitted that it is not that the entire front portion of the land of the appellant had been acquired, rather a part thereof is still there from which the appellant has access in the back portion of the acquired land. He further submitted that even from a branch road from the main road also, the appellant has access. Accordingly, no case for claim of damages on account of severance is made out. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Collector, while determining the market value of the land, recorded a fact regarding the situation thereof, which is as under: “ It is located just close to the Govt. High School building and also in the neighbourhood of village abadi. It abuts Jundla Karnal pacca road and further there were development activities R.F.A. No. 1327 of 1986 [3] in the village which were in the close neighbourhood of this piece of land.” While referring to the value of various sale deeds for the purpose of calculation of compensation, the Collector, while averaging the same at Rs. 10916.80 per acre, assessed the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 30,000/- per acre with the following observations: “On the basis of these twelve sale transactions the average rate per acre comes to Rs. 10916.80 P. per acre. The pieces of land involved in these transactions were located much away in the interior from the land now under acquisition. The location of these lands was obviously much inferior and these were devoid of any potentiality. The advantage of location and potential value were attached to the area now under discussion for market value and these advantages would definitely suggest a lot of premium over the above said average rate per acre while framing assessment in this case.” Though a site plan has been placed on record by the appellant drawn on 6.4.1985 showing the location of the land and other development activities in the vicinity, but it has not come on record as to whether this was position on the date of acquisition of land or the date when the site plan was prepared, namely, six years after the acquisition. The appellant did not produce any evidence before the Collector to enable him to assess the value of the land. The sole instance which has been produced before the Court, i.e., Ex. P.2 cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of the value of the land for the reason that the same is part of the abadi of the village for a land measuring 10 marlas having frontage on the main road. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that some cut should be applied on that is totally misconceived as there is no comparison as such between the land involved in the sale deed and the land under acquisition. Though P.W.1- Madan Lal Bhatia stated in his examination-in-chief that he had sold plots at the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per marla in the vicinity on which constructions had been raised, but in his cross-examination he could not even tell the name of the persons to whom the plots were sold what to talk of producing any sale deed qua the same. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in R.F.A. No. 1327 of 1986 [4] upholding the award of the Collector who had already considered the potential and other factors for assessment of the fair value of the land on the date of acquisition by almost increasing the same three times, as compared to the value of the sale deed available before him. As far as the claim of the appellant for severance of the land is concerned, the same is also not tenable as the land of the appellant had not been divided into two parts. It is only that one portion of the land which has been acquired. The other portion of the land still abuts the main road. The appellant also has access from a branch road connecting the main road. Accordingly, the claim of the appellant on this count is also rejected. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 01 , 2008 mk