RFA No.1758 of 1990 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.1758 of 1990 Date of decision: 3.11.2008 **** State of Punjab …. Appellant(s) Vs. Gurmej Kaur and another ….. Respondent(s) **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the appellant(s). None for the respondent(s). **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This judgment shall dispose of 4 cases i.e. RFA Nos. 1758, 1759 of 1990 and RFA Nos.602 & 1416 of 1991, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 12 bighas and 17 biswas in village Gajdi Nagar was sought to be acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 11.3.1987 for the public purpose, namely, for construction of Satluj Yamuna Link ( for short ‘SYL’) Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi, Rs.60,000/- per acre for Nehri and Rs.35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. Aggrieved against the award under Section 11 of the pronounced by the Collector, objections under Section 18 of the Act were filed in which it was alleged that the compensation is inadequate and the value of the land was not less than Rs.2 lacs per RFA No.1758 of 1990 - 2 - acre at the time of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In the written statement, the respondents averred that the Collector has given just and reasonable compensation as per the prevalent market rate. In support of the claim, claimant Sampuran Kaur, attorney of the claimants stepped into the witness box as AW-I and produced copy of judgment Ex.A-1. In Rebuttal the respondent produced sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-3. The Court below relied upon the previous award Ex.A3 of the same Village where the land was acquired for the same purpose and the compensation was assessed @ Rs.17,000/- per bigha for Chahi, Rs.17,000/- per acre for Nehri, Rs.75,0 0/- per bigha for Rosli and Rs.6,000/- per bigha for Gair Mumkin. Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G. Punjab, has vehemently argued that the sale deeds Exs. R1 to R3 have been wrongly discarded. However, nothing was brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing as how these sale deeds were relevant for the purpose of determination of compensation. The reference Court, while dealing with the Exs.R1 to R3 has rightly observed that no relevance on the sale deeds required to be placed in view of the fact that earlier land of the same village has been acquired by the same purpose and the decision has been assessed by the award (Ex.A3). I do not find any error in the judgment of the reference Court. Hence, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab has been dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 3.11.2008 JUDGE vivek