R.F.A. No. 4369 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 4369 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.11.2010 The State of Haryana and others .. Appellants v. Telu Ram and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 4369 to 4391 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The State is in appeal seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land by the learned court below. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 4369 of 2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 1.5.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 19.14 acres, situated in village Nehla, Hadbast No. 59, Tehsil and District Fatehabad, was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of Dehman Sub Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 29.8.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 3.1.2003, assessed the market value @ ` 2,12,252/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land; ` 1,29,317/- per acre for Nehri land and ` 1,05,000/- per acre for Taal land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,86,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of acquired land, as has been determined by the learned court below, is not in consonance with the evidence produced by the parties on record. The learned court below has failed R.F.A. No. 4369 of 2010 [ 2] to appreciate the fact that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P1), which was relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land was located close to the abadi of the village, whereas the land in question was a strip of land acquired for the purpose of construction of a Minor. Considering the locational advantage to the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P1), a cut was required to be applied for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. He further submitted that application for additional evidence was filed by the State annexing therewith certain sale deeds. If the same are considered, the amount awarded by the Collector was just an fair. In the present case, on account of unavoidable reasons, the evidence could not be produced by the State when the opportunities were granted therefor, however, merely on that account, the land owners should not be awarded compensation, which is not just and fair. After hearing learned counsel for the State, I do not find any merit in the present set of appeals. The present appeal has been filed in this court after a delay of 68 days. It is a case in which after the evidence of the land owners was completed, sufficient opportunities were granted to the State for leading its evidence, but the State failed to lead any evidence. Thereafter application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence was filed, which did not make out any case for permitting the State to lead additional evidence. The same was considered by the learned court below and dismissed vide detailed order passed on 8.2.2010 before the final award was passed on 9.2.2010. The application for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the learned court below, as despite numerous opportunities afforded to the State, no evidence was led and after the evidence was closed by order of the court, no ground was made out which could justify grant of further opportunity to the State for leading the evidence. I do not find any error was committed by the learned court below in dismissing that application. As far as assessment of compensation for the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, sale deed (Ex. P1) has not been wrongly relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of by the learned court below. The land pertaining thereto is located about 10 acres away from the acquired land, may be close to the abadi, however, the fact remains that the acquired land is also passing through two roads and the acquisition in the present case was carried out two years after the registration of the sale deed. The average consideration paid therein was ` 4,80,000/- per acre. Though the learned court below has applied a formula, whereby increase and cuts have been provided on different accounts, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that without granting any increase on the sale R.F.A. No. 4369 of 2010 [ 3] consideration paid in sale deed (Ex. P1) registered two years prior to the date of acquisition, if a cut of 40% is applied therein, the value comes out to ` 2,88,000/- per acre. In the present case, the learned court below has awarded ` 2,86,000/- per acre as compensation for the acquired land which, in my opinion, cannot be said to be on higher side, as nothing has been awarded on account of severance. Therefore, I do not find that the award in question deserves to be interfered with in appeal filed by the State. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Even the accompanying applications are also dismissed. However, it is made clear that this court is not dealing with the issue regarding determination of compensation as far as claim of the land owners is concerned. In case, appeals are filed by them, those shall be considered on their own merits. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 1.11.2010 mk