RFA No.29 of1994 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.29 of1994 Date of decision: 20.11.2008 **** Ram Niwas and another . . . . Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana . . . . Respondent(s) **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Harbhagwan Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit K. Singh, Advocate and Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Mr.H.S. Hooda, A.G., Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the respondent(s). **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J This common order shall dispose of 17 appeals bearing RFA Nos.29, 212, 213, 214, 399, 461, 464, 465, 466, 652, 680, 842, 1128, 2556, 2962 of 1994 and RFA Nos.1753 & 1754 of 1996, as the identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 55 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Pillu Khera, H.B. No.17, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) followed by notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, published in Govt. Gazette on 15.10.1987 and 14.10.1988 respectively, for the public purpose, namely, for the establishment of new grain market at Pillu Khera. RFA No.29 of1994 - 2 - District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector (in short ‘the Collector), Jind vide his award No.3 for the year 1990- 91 dated 10.10.1990, categorized the entire land as Nehri and awarded Rs.80,000/- per acre towards compensation. Vide another notification dated 15.10.1987 published on the same date under Section 4 of the Act, followed by notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 158 acres 14 marlas in village Bhurian, H.B. No.16, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind was acquired at public expense, for the public purpose, namely, for establishment of new grain market at Pillu Khera, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. The District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Jind vide his award No.4 for the year 1990-91 dated 10.10.1990, considering the entire acquired land as Nehri on the basis of entries in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84, awarded compensation @ Rs.80,000/- per acre for the land and Rs.29,355/- to six landowners towards compensation for trees, besides other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. Aggrieved landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act against the award of the collector, which were referred by the Collector to the Civil Court. In the claim-petitions, the landowners claimed compensation @ Rs.5 lac to Rs.25 lac per acre. It was inter alia pleaded that the acquired land has a great residential and commercial potentiality. In the reply, the State of Haryana averred that the amount awarded by the Collector is fair and reasonable. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The landowners examined PW1 Suraj Mal, Patwari Halka, Bhurian; PW2 Balraj Sharma, Draftsman; PW3 Kartar Ram, Attorney of RFA No.29 of1994 - 3 - some of the petitioners; PW4 Moji Ram and PW5 Ram Dhari. The respondent examined Balbir Nath Reader to LAC Jind as RW1 and Jai Bhagwan, Secretary, Market Committee, Phillu Khera as RW2. Both the parties also tendered documentary evidence. The reference Court, after considering the evidence on record, did not find any material to differ with the award given by the collector and the same was maintained as such. Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr.Advocate, learned counsel for the landowners/claimants has vehemently contended that reference Court has committed palpable error in not giving due appreciation to the sale deeds tendered by the claimants which are tabulated as under: - S.No Sale Deed Dated Area Price (in Rs.) Per sq. yard 1. Ex.P-5 17.8.1979 44 Sq.yards 9000/- Rs.205 Sq.yards 2. Ex.P-6 17.8.1979 46 Sq.yards 9000/- Rs.196 Sq.yards 3. Ex.P-8 26.6.1978 40 Sq.yards 5000/- Rs.125 Sq.yards 4. Ex.P-9 17.8.1979 46 Sq.yards 6000/- Rs.130 Sq.yards Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that even in the statement of PW1 it has come that acquired land has a great potentiality. Thus, it is argued that reference Court should have taken into consideration the rising trend of the price in the real estate. Mr.H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana has submitted that landowners have not placed on record any evidence to show the rising trend. It is contended that the sale deeds placed on record as Ex.P5 to P9 are about 8 to 9 years old and are of very small piece of land measured in square yards. It is contended by the State counsel that there is no evidence to prove great potentiality of the acquired RFA No.29 of1994 - 4 - land. Rather it is argued that the acquired land is sandwitched between two villages, namely, Pillu Khera and Bhurian. It is also submitted that the acquired land is at a distance of 2 to 3 kms away from two villages as per the statement of RW2 Jai Bhagwan, Secretary, Market Committee, Phillu Khera. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid great stress on the phenomenon of price rise in the real estate and urged that reference Court has committed a grave error in not awarding the compensation accordingly which has caused miscarriage of justice. Though, the argument is attractive but it is not based on any evidence on record. The sale deeds tendered by claimants pertains to the year 1978-79 and no sale deed of the later years has been produced on record which could show rising trend in the real estate in the area of the acquired land. No sale instance have been produced which could indicate the value of the land in proximity of time when it was acquired in the year 1987. From the evidence, Ex.P5 to P9 it is apparent that there was no activity of sale of land for about 8 to 9 years, therefore it is very difficult to appreciate as to what was the rising trend for the purpose of taking judicial notice. Moreover, sale deeds Exs. P5 to P9 are about 8 to 9 years prior to the acquisition and cannot be set up as an example for determining the compensation. The appellants even could not show the location of sale deed Ex.P5 to P9. In these circumstance, no guess work can be applied for the purpose of enhancing the compensation in favour of the claimants. RFA No.29 of1994 - 5 - In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 20.11.2008 JUDGE vivek