R.F.A. No. 780 of 2002 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 780 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2010 State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Ram Partap and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R. S. Longia, Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Mr. Bhag Singh and Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocates for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 780 to 793, 875, 877 to 881, 922, 1200, 1240, 1241, 1361, 1411 to 1413, 1415 of 2002 and 1670 of 2003 and cross objections No. 41-CI of 2002, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 780 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 19/20.10.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 73 acres, 2 kanals and 8 marlas of land, situated in village Rao Majra, Hadbast No. 312, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala for forestation purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 20.1.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value @ ` 90,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 60,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 40,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim land; ` 30,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Darar land and ` 20,000/- per acre for R.F.A. No. 780 of 2002 [ 2] Gair Mumkin Chao land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,10,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the best piece of evidence in the present case on record is sale deed (Ex. P2), which is forming part of the acquired land. Vide aforesaid sale deed, 7 kanals and 3 marlas of land was sold for a total consideration of ` 1,34,063/-. The aforesaid sale deed was registered on 17.5.1994. The average sale consideration comes out to ` 1,50,000/- per acre. Considering the fact that it was forming part of the acquired land registered well before the acquisition of land for a relatively big chunk of land, the same should be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. The land owners should also be awarded increase at least @ 12% per annum for the time gap, from the registration of the aforesaid sale deed and the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which is about 1/1-2 years. The trend of prices of land in the area is evident from sale deed (Ex. P6) registered on 8.12.1995 pertaining to the land of the same village, vide which 14 kanals and 6 marlas of land was sold for ` 4,07,550/- at an average price of ` 2,28,000/- per acre. It was registered merely 1-1/2 months after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The location thereof is quite close to the acquired land. The genuineness of the aforesaid sale deed was also not doubted at the time of leading evidence. As far as sale deeds produced by the State are concerned, the same have to be noticed and rejected in view of the fact that the consideration shown therein is less than the award of the Collector. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that even if sale deed (Ex. P2) is relied upon and increase for the time gap is granted @ 10% per annum after application of a reasonable cut on account of the fact that it was merely for about an acre of land, whereas the acquired land was a big chunk of 73 acres, the award of compensation by the learned court below is on higher side. The land was acquired merely for the purpose of forestation, which is located far away from the municipal limits. In fact, it had been declared as protected forest on which no construction activity could be carried out and the land as such was not valuable. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The fact that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P2) is forming part of the acquired land is not in dispute. The acquired land as well as the portion of R.F.A. No. 780 of 2002 [ 3] land dealt with in sale deed (Ex. P2) are agricultural in kind, as the same were located outside the municipal boundaries. Even if the acquired land had been declared a protected forest, still the fact remains that sale deed (Ex. P2) was registered when the aforesaid restriction was already there on the land. Therefore, it cannot be said that value and utility of the land for a land owner had been reduced after it was declared a protected forest. It is also a fact that sale deed (Ex. P2) was registered about 1-1/2 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Average consideration paid therein was ` 1,50,000/- per acre. Considering the appreciation of prices, the courts have been awarding increase @ 12% per annum, in case there is an earlier award or a relevant sale deed on which reliance is to be placed. The area dealt with in sale deed (Ex. P2) being one acre, it cannot be said to be a small piece of land. It has not come on record that in the vicinity of the acquired land, there were any commercial establishments. The aforesaid sale deed, in my opinion, can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land and even if a reasonable cut is to be applied treating the same to be a small portion of land, vis-a-vis, the acquired land, the time gap on the date of registration of sale deed till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act will take care of that point and the land owners deserve to be granted compensation @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre as against ` 1,10,000/- per acre awarded by the learned court below. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. Accordingly, the appeals and the cross objections filed by the land owners are allowed in the manner indicated above, whereas the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.11.2010 mk