RFA No.560 of 1994 - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.560 of 1994 Date of decision:18.08.2010. Dharampal ...Appellant Versus Haryana State and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: None for the appellant/claimant. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents in RFA No.560 of 1994 and for appellants in RFA Nos.769, 770, 771 & 772 of 1994. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of 5 appeals bearing RFA No.560 of 1994 titled as `Dharampal v. Haryana State and another', RFA No.769 of 1994 titled as 'State of Haryana and another v. Jeeta and others', RFA No.770 of 1994 titled as `Haryana State and another v. Rajbir Singh and another', RFA No.771 of 1994 titled as 'Haryana State and another v. Dharampal' and RFA No.772 of 1994 titled as `Haryana State and another v. Chandi Ram and others' by a comon order as all the appeals have arisen out of an order passed by the learned Reference Court (Additional District Judge, Hisar) dated 03.12.1993 vide which compensation has been re-assessed to the tune of Rs.28,000/- per acres besides the grant of statutory benefits in RFA No.560 of 1994 - 2 - ****** terms of the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the Act”]. Land measuring 19 Kanals 4 Marlas was notified under Section 4 of the Act published on 18.02.1986 for construction of a road from village Moth to Latta. The Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar [for short “the Collector”] vide his award No.28-H dated 13.09.1988 assessed the market value of the acquired land to the tune of Rs.14,400/- per acre. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed objections under Section 18 of the Act which were referred by the Collector to the Court for adjudication. The land owners claimed an amount of Rs.70,000/- per acre for their acquired land on the ground that it was fit for being developed as residential area. It was also alleged that the land of village Shaladeri is adjoining to the land of villages Lohari Ragho and Moth. Thus, they prayed for increase of the compensation to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. In reply, it was alleged that the compensation assessed @ Rs.14,400/- is assessed on the basis of prevailing market rate at the time of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence. The learned Court below neither relied upon the sale deed (Ex.PB) tendered by the claimants being of the year 1982 nor the sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 relied upon by the State as those were not depicting correct value of the acquired land, rather the Court below had relied upon the already assessed market value of village Lohari Ragho which was acquired at the same time and awarded Rs.28,000/- per acre as compensation. RFA No.560 of 1994 - 3 - ****** No one has come forward to argue the appeal filed on behalf of the claimant/land owner. However, learned counsel for the State has argued the appeals filed on behalf of the State. He has submitted that learned Court below has erred in discarding the sale deeds Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and has erred in relying upon an award of the land pertaining to adjoining villages. It is submitted that the sale deeds (Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 ), which pertains to the same village from which the land had been acquired, should have been relied upon by the learned Court below. I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record with his assistance. Ex.R1 to Ex.R5, which has been basically relied upon by learned Counsel for the State, are tabulated as under: - Exhibit Date of sale Area sold Price Price per acre Ex.R1 22.05.1981 05K 14M Rs.2500/- Rs.3,509/- Ex.R2 05.04.1984 32K 09M Rs.37,000/- Rs.9,122/- Ex.R3 19.05.1984 14K 01M Rs.20,000/- Rs.11,388/- Ex.R4 27.08.1984 15K 08M Rs.25,500/- Rs.13,247/- Ex.R5 28.05.1984 32K 10M Rs.37,000/- Rs.9,108/- The learned Reference Court has discussed each sale deed in detail in para 13 of its decision, which reads as under: - “13. Ex.R1 is the sale deed dated 22.05.1981 and is not executed on or about the date of notification. It was executed about 4 years earlier to the date of notification. The price at Rs.3,509/- per acre does not appear to be real. The remaining four sale deeds are executed from April to August of the year 1984. the price RFA No.560 of 1994 - 4 - ****** per acre that can be gathered from these documents had wide variations. For this wide variation in the price, it cannot be outrightly said that the transactions are bonafide and there was no motive on the part of the vendees to get lesseral price shown to save on stamp duty. Even if the sale transactions evidenced by Ex.R4 is taken into account and an amount at the rate of 12% per annum of the price per acres is added to it for the period from 27.08.1984 to 18.02.1986 the price comes to Rs.15,600/- approximately. This price was not even given by the LAC.” I do not find any reason to differ with the reasoning adopted by the learned Reference Court in not relying upon the sale deeds tendered by the appellant/State. Insofar as the award of compensation is concerned that is based upon the value of the acquired land which has already been determined for the acquired land of the adjoining villages Lohari Ragho and Moth. PW1 Dharampal has specifically stated that the land of village Lohari Ragho and Moth are adjoining to the land of claimants/landowners. PW2 Suresh Kumar Patwari has also stated that the land in question is canal irrigated and PW3 Lal Chand has stated that “our land and land of the area of village Lohari Ragho was acquired at one time”. He has not been cross-examined in this regard by the counsel for the State. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no error of law in the order of the learned Reference Court either for the purpose of RFA No.560 of 1994 - 5 - ****** enhancement of compensation or for the purpose of reducing the same. The appeals filed by the claimant/land owner as well as the State of Haryana are thus found to be without any merit and the same are hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. August 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE