R.F.A. No. 128 of 1996 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 128 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Jagir Singh @ Jasmer and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 128, 130, 449 to 454, 456 to 462 of 1996, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 128 of 1996. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 3.2.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired the land in village Bhatauli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar for for construction of Sahabad-Nalvi Feeder. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 31.1.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 52,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 35,000/- per acre for barani land; ` 17,500/- per acre for banjar kadeem land and ` 9,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of 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 @ ` 62,000/- per acre, instead of ` 52,000/- for chahi land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sahabad-Nalvi Feeder. It R.F.A. No. 128 of 1996 [ 2] is located adjoining to the already populated area of city of Jagadhri, which is well known city for utensils. It had great future potential, as the city was expanding on this side. It was surrounded by residential area. Main bus stand, Jagadhri and hospital were merely at a distance of 3-4 furlongs. For the same purpose, land pertaining to other villages was also acquired and this court in R.F.A. No. 3491 of 1992 –Balbir Singh and others v. The State of Haryana, decided on 12.3.1997, pertaining to land of villages Telipura Bhukhri and Udhamgarh had assessed the value @ ` 1,72,000/- per acre plus ` 30,000/- per acre on account of potentiality. The land in question is also similarly located and has the same or even better potentiality. The aforesaid judgment in Balbir Singh's case (supra) has been produced along with application seeking permission to produce the same on record, along with which a site plan, which is a revised Draft Development Plan for Controlled Areas 2021-AD for Yamuna Nagar and Jagadhri, was also produced. In the plan, learned counsel for the land owners only sought to show the location of the acquired land and also the populated area of city of Jagadhri. The land dealt with in Balbir Singh's case (supra) has also been shown. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land in question is located outside the municipal limits. It was being used for agricultural purposes, when the same was acquired. There was no pressure for development in the area in the year 1988, when the land in question was acquired. The land owners have failed to produce on record the relevant evidence, on the basis of which they could claim that they are entitled to further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. It was further submitted that judgment in Balbir Singh's case (supra) as such cannot be relied upon as the same pertained to land of different village, even if the purpose of acquisition was same. However, the development plan, which has been produced by the land owners along with the application as such has not been disputed as far as the location of the acquired land, population of city of Jagadhri and the location of villages is concerned. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the same is very well evident from the site plan (Annexure A1) produced by the land owners along with the application which shows that the land has been acquired in the form of a strip. The land pertaining to village Udhamgarh falls on one side of the city of Jagadhri, whereas the land pertaining to village Batauli is located on the other side. Part of the land of this village was within the controlled area of Jagadhri/Yamuna Nagar. R.F.A. No. 128 of 1996 [ 3] Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 3.2.1988, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act in Balbir Singh's case (supra) was issued on 30.9.1986. From a perusal of the map, it can very well be opined that as far as location and potentiality of the land is concerned, the land of villages Badhshahpur and Batauli would be similar. Once there is a judicial precedent available determining the value of the land acquired for the same purpose, which otherwise is also comparable as far as its location and potentiality is concerned, the same can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the land in question. In Balbir Singh's case (supra), this court had assessed the value of the land therein @ ` 1,72,000/- per acre plus ` 30,000/- per acre on account of potentiality along with statutory benefits. It may be mentioned here that the Collector in that case had assessed the compensation for chahi land @ ` 29,000/- peracre for chahi land and ` 5,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land, whereas in the present case, the Collector had assessed the value @ ` 52,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 35,000/- per acre for barani land; ` 17,500/- per acre for banjar kadeem land and ` 9,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the judgment of this court in Balbir Singh's case (supra) can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land in the present set of appeals. Accordingly, as far as the appeals filed by the land owners are concerned, the same are allowed and the compensation therein is determined in terms of the judgment of this court in Balbir Singh's case (supra). ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 5.1.2011 mk