R.F.A. No. 541 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 541 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2011 Maya and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/Shri Rajiv Sharma, Shiv Kumar, Rajesh Lamba Adarsh Jain, Kulbhushan Sharma and Lokesh Sinhal, Advocates for the land owners. Shri Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 541, 898 to 901, 1781 to 1788, 1807, 1808, 1832, 2247, 2248, 2361, 2391, 2416, 2428, 2850, 2889 to 2906, 2953 to 2959, 3823 to 3825, 3905, 4082, 5299, 5307, 5362, 5473 and 5500 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 541 of 2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 26.8.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 50.11 acres and 13.62 acres of land in village Gaunchhi, Hadbast No. 26 and village Ballabgarh, R.F.A. No. 541 of 2010 [ 2] Hadbast No. 78, respectively, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 56-A and industrial for Sector 56, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 25.8.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 3.8.2006, assessed the market value @ ` 516.50 per square yard for the land situated in village Gaunchhi and ` 578.50 per square yard for the land situated in village Ballabgarh. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed objections, which were referred to the learned court below, who vide award dated 1.10.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 895/- per square yard for the land situated in village Gaunchhi and ` 1,000/- per square yard for the land situated in village Ballabgarh. It is against this award that the land owners are before this court. The learned court below has placed reliance upon an earlier judgment in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001 –Ved Pal v. State of Haryana, decided on 3.5.2006, pertaining to acquisition of land in adjoining village Jharsaintli, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in May, 1995, whereby this court had assessed the compensation @ ` 450/- per square yard. Finding the same to be valuation of comparable piece of land, the learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land by adding 12% per annum therein for the time gap in the two notifications and the compensation for the land pertaining to revenue estate of village Gaunchhi was assessed @ ` 895/- per square yard and for the land pertaining to revenue estate of village Ballabgarh, the same was assessed @ ` 1,000/- per square yard. The contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners is that though the learned court below has awarded increase @ 12% per annum between the two acquisitions, however, considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jiwanbhai Patel and another, JT 2008(9) SC 480, the increase should have been with compounding effect and not merely simple. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that R.F.A. No. 541 of 2010 [ 3] reliance on the judgment of this court pertaining to acquisition of land of village Jharsaintli by the learned court below is totally misplaced, as the land pertaining thereto is located on National Highway. The land in question is located 4-5 kilometes away therefrom. The learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record in its entirety. Even the sale deeds produced on record did not justify the award of compensation, as has been assessed by the learned court below, what to talk of increase therein. Reference was made to sale deeds (Ex. P-21A, Ex. P-24A, Ex. P-25A, Ex. P-26, Ex. P-26A, Ex. P27 to Ex. P29). The aforesaid sale deeds produced by the land owners clearly established that even for small plots, the value was not such as has been assessed by the learned court below. In fact, it is a case of reduction in the compensation. In any case, no case for enhancement is made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court below placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Ved Pal's case (supra), whereby vide notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on May, 1995, pertaining to land of village Jharsaintli, this court assessed the compensation @ ` 500/- per square yard for the land pertaining to Sector 61, whereas for the other land, it was assessed @ ` 450/- per square yard. As against that, there was evidence on record produced by the land owners in the form of sale deeds, the relevant being Ex. P-21A, Ex. P-24A, Ex. P-25A, Ex. P-26, Ex. P-26A, Ex. P27 to Ex. P29. A perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds clearly established that even for plots of small sizes, the value shown in the sale deeds was ranging from ` 700/- to ` 1000/- per square yard. The learned court below in the present case has already assessed the compensation for big chunk of land, being 50.11 acres, @ ` 895/- per square yard for the land pertaining to village Gaunchhi, whereas for the acquired land being 13.62 acres in the revenue estate of village Ballabgarh, the same has been assessed @ ` 1,000/- per square yard. Award of increase for the time gap in the acquisition is not to be applied mechanically. The object is to see that the land owners are awarded R.F.A. No. 541 of 2010 [ 4] adequate compensation for the acquired land. It is only for that reason that increase was proposed with cumulative effect. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had even opined that increase in certain cases may not be restricted to 10 to 15%, as increase in prices in some area can be even more than that. Considering the material on record, I do not find that any case is made out for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 11.5.2011 mk