R.F.A. No. 2598 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2896-CI of 2011 and R.F.A. No. 2598 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Mansa (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant v. Union Territory, Chandigarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Joshi, Mr. Tajender Joshi and Ms. Rajwinder Kaur, Advocates for the land owners. Ms. Lisa Gill, Mr. Deepak Sharma and Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocates for Union Territory, Chandigarh. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2598 to 2605 of 2004, 447, 549 and 1341 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2598 of 2004. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.2.1996, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), Union Territory, Chandigarh sought to acquire 246 kanals and 7 marlas of land, situated at village Kaimbwala, U.T., Chandigarh, for the purpose of soil conservation and aforestation. The same was followed by notification dated 23.7.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The R.F.A. No. 2598 of 2004 [2] Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 15.11.1996, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,39,200/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record by the land owners in the form of sale deeds Ex. P1 and Ex. P2, which were pertaining to village Kansal. This village is adjoining to village Kaimbwala, and located in the State of Punjab. Vide sale deed (Ex. P1), two kanals of land was sold on 17.5.1996 for ` 3,75,000/-, whereas vide sale deed (Ex. P2), two kanals of land was sold on 14.6.1996 for ` 3,75,000/-. In addition to that, reference was sought to be made to the document annexed with the application for additional evidence, namely, the award of the learned court below (Ex. A1) pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 24.10.2000 in village Kaimbwala. It was submitted that the land pertaining thereto was located close to the acquired land. In the aforesaid case, the learned court below had assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 17,46,000/- per acre as against ` 6,90,240/- per acre assessed by the Collector. Further reference was sought to be made to sale deed dated 30.8.2006 for land measuring 11 kanals and 5 marlas situated in village Kaimbwala sold for a consideration of ` 40,50,000/-, i.e., ` 28,80,000/- per acre. While referring to the aforesaid sale deed, the submission was that a reasonable cut can be applied considering the fact that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued earlier. However, learned counsel for the land owners was not able to point out on any site plan the location of the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex.P2) produced on record before the court below, though the land pertaining to acquisition vide notification dated 24.10.2000 was sought to be pointed out in the site plan. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that it is a case of no evidence. The sale deeds pertaining to village Kansal have no relevance for the purpose of R.F.A. No. 2598 of 2004 [3] assessment of fair value of the acquired land considering the fact that it was a developed area. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of aforestation. It was located at a remote place. As far as the award and the sale deed sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence is concerned, it was submitted that the same have no relevance considering the fact that award (Annexure-A1) was pertaining to land acquired more than 4-1/2 years after the acquisition in question and the sale deeds is more than 10 years later. The application for leading additional evidence deserves to be dismissed. In the absence of any clinching evidence, no illegality was committed by the learned court below in dismissing the references filed by the land owners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) produced on record by the land owners are concerned, those pertained to land purchased by Tribune Employees and Friends Housing Welfare Society, which means that it was located close to abadi area, that too in village Kansal, which is located in the State of Punjab. There is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show the location of the land dealt with in the aforesaid sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) vis-a-vis the acquired land. Site plan (Ex. P3) produced on record shows the location of the acquired land, which is at a remote place. It is only for this reason that the same was acquired for aforestation. As far as award (Annexure-A1) and sale deed (Annexure-A2) produced on record along with the application for additional evidence are concerned, the same are also totally irrelevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, as the award is pertaining to the land, which was acquired more than 4-1/2 years later and the sale deed was registered more than 10 years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Considering the entire material produced on record by the land owners, it is in fact a case of no evidence. The land owners in the present case had not been able to discharge the onus cast on them to show R.F.A. No. 2598 of 2004 [4] that the value of land as assessed by the Collector was not just and fair. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. The application for permission to lead additional evidence is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.4.2011 mk