RFA No. 915 of 1994 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: April 23, 2009 1. R.F.A. No. 915 of 1994 (O&M) Devi Charan and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent 2. R.F.A. No. 916 of 1994 (O&M) Khillan and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent 3. R.F.A. No. 917 of 1994 (O&M) Sat Pal and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a set of above mentioned three appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of the amount of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 915 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide RFA No. 915 of 1994 [2] notification dated 9.4.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired land measuring 30 kanals and 14 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Swamika, Tehsil Hathin, District Faridabad for construction of road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 50,030/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 35,040/- for Barani land and Rs. 25,040/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the evidence led by them in the form of various sale deeds (Ex. P2 to Ex. P8) have not been given due weightage. As against this, the learned court below had merely relied upon sale deed (Ex. R2) produced by the State. The acquisition in the present case was for a small portion of land measuring 30 kanals and 14 marlas for the purpose of construction of a road and accordingly, even the sale deeds produced by the land owners may be for small plots, could very well be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as against the award of the Collector determining the amount of compensation at Rs. 50,030/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 35,040/- for Barani land and Rs. 25,040/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land, the learned court below had already enhanced the same to Rs. 60,000/- per acre. The same does not call for any interference as there is no site plan on record to show the exact location of the plots dealt with in the sale deeds produced by the land owners. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the impugned award of the learned court below does not call for any interference. It is for the reason that though the land owners had produced on record seven sale deeds, four of them (Ex. P5 to Ex. P8) were registered after the acquisition. Even other sale deeds also could not possibly be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that exact location thereof has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record by the land owners. In the absence thereof, the court could not possibly compare the value thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land. As against this, the learned court below had relied upon sale deed (Ex. R2) produced by the State, where 9 kanals 7 marlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 65,600/-. As against this, two other sale deeds were not considered, which show lesser value, i.e., vide sale deed (Ex. R1), 6 kanals of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and vide sale deed (Ex. R3), 3 kanals 4 RFA No. 915 of 1994 [3] marlas of land was sold for Rs. 12,000/-. Still further, the learned court below had done away with the categorisation of land as Chahi, Barani or Gair Mumkin. In my opinion, the value, as determined by the learned court below, considering the material on record by the parties, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 23.4.2009 mk