R.F.A. No. 2240 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.1.2009 1. R. F. A No. 2240 of 1992 (O&M) & Cross Objections No. 27-CI of 1993 Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Behari .... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 2241 of 1992 and Cross-objection No. 19/CI of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Mehar Chand .... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 2242 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Hari Chand .... Respondent 4. R. F. A No. 2243 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others .... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 2244 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Vijay Kumar .... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 2245 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Bhagwant Sarup and another .... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 2246 of 1992 and Cross-objection No. 20/CI of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Ratti Ram .... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 2247 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Behari Lal and others .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 2240 of 1992 [2] 9. R. F. A No. 2248 of 1992 and Cross-objection No. 21/CI of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Lila Ram .... Respondent 10. R. F. A No. 2249 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Mangal .... Respondent 11. R. F. A No. 2250 of 1992 and Cross-objection No. 22/CI of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Khem Chand and others .... Respondents 12. R. F. A No. 2251 of 1992 and Cross-objection No. 23/CI of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Chiranji Lal .... Respondent 13. R. F. A No. 2252 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Mehar Chand .... Respondent 14. R. F. A No. 2253 of 1992 and Cross-objection No. 24/CI of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Sampat Ram .... Respondent 15. R. F. A No. 2254 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Lal Singh (died) through LRs and others .... Respondents 16. R. F. A No. 2255 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Mata Din and another .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 2240 of 1992 [3] 17. R. F. A No. 2256 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Chhaju (died) through LRs. .... Respondent 18. R. F. A No. 2257 of 1992 (O&M) & Cross Objections No. 28-CI of 1993 Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Manohar Singh .... Respondent 19. R. F. A No. 2258 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Bakhtawar (died) through LRs. .... Respondent 20. R. F. A No. 2259 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Sita Ram .... Respondent 21. R. F. A No. 2260 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Bal Kishan .... Respondent 22. R. F. A No. 2423 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Savitri Devi .... Respondent 26. R. F. A No. 2692 of 1993 (O&M) Smt. Shakuntla Devi and others ... Appellants vs Haryana State and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the land owners. ... R.F.A. No. 2240 of 1992 [4] Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 26 appeals and cross objections, as the same arise out of the common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 2240 to 2260 of 1992 and 2423 of 1992 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. R.F.A. Nos. 2692 of 1993 has been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. In R.F.A. No. 2240, 2241, 2246, 2248, 2250, 2251, 2253 and 2257 of 1992, the land owners have filed cross-objections praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned court below. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2240 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 2.47 acres acres, situated in the revenue estate of Mahendergarh, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh was acquired vide notification dated 24.2.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of road from Nathuwala Mohalla, Mahendergarh to Village Chamdhera. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 80,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Barani land; Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Bhood land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Chah kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Narnaul, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 1,17,500/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 1,05,750/- per acre for Barani Rosli-I/II land and Rs. 94,000/- per acre for Rosli and Bhood kind of land. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not in consonance with the material produced on record by the land owners. The land, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of a road, was situated far off the city and reliance on sale deed (Ex. P1) was not fair, considering the fact that the same was for a small piece of 16 marlas of land. The value of the land, as was determined by the Collector, was quite reasonable. The same did not call for any interference by the learned Reference Court, what to talk of its further increase by this Court in the appeals/cross objections filed by the land owners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has committed a grave error in not considering the R.F.A. No. 2240 of 1992 [5] entire amount paid vide sale deed dated 25.2.1986 pertaining to 16 marlas of land in which the amount of Rs. 6,000/- paid as earnest money was not considered at all and the value was determined only on the basis of the amount paid before the Sub Registrar. The submission is that even the amount which was paid as earnest money is also part of the sale consideration and if that amount is considered, the value of the acquired land deserves to be increased further. However, he was not able to refer to any site plan on record to show the location of the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P1). Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record. The acquisition in the present case is merely for a small area of 2.47 acres, which was acquired for the purpose of widening of road leading from Nathuwala Mohalla to Village Chamdhera, meaning thereby that the land was situated quite close to the city, as widening of the road was to start from a Mohalla in the city. Not only this, even further the very purpose for which the land was acquired shows that the same was situated on the road which was already existing. Any land situated on the road certainly carries special value, as compared to the land which is located off the road. No doubt, the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P1), which has been relied upon by the learned court below has not been pointed out on any site plan produced. However, a perusal of the contents of the sale deed shows that the same was located in the city. In the present case, the acquired land also abuts Nathuwala Mohalla, which means in the city. Accordingly, even the argument of learned counsel for the land owners regarding non-consideration of the entire sale consideration money paid in sale deed (Ex. P1), suffice to add that, the same can very well be set off against the location of the land which may be better in case of sale deed (Ex. P1). For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeals as well as cross objections. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.1.2009 mk