RFA No.1397 of 1992 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Decided on 31.3.2009 Balwinder Singh -- Appellant vs. Government of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.J.S.Thind,Advocate,with Mr.Rajeev Godara,Advocate, for the appellants in RFA Nos. 1397,1398, 1400 to 1402 and 1852 of 1992 and for the respondent in RFA No. 3703 of 1992 Ms.Stuti Kohli,Advocate, for Mr.C.B.Goel,Advocate, for HAFED. Ms.Mamta Singal Talwar,AAG,Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of eight Regular First Appeal Nos. 1397,1398,1400 to 1402 and 1851,1852 and 3709 of 1992 filed by the claimants and eight Regular First Appeal Nos.2896,3702 to 3708 of 1992. filed by the State of Haryana against the impugned order passed by the reference Court dated 15.2.1992, wherein the claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation whereas the RFA No.1397 of 1992 2 State of Haryana has prayed for reducing the compensation already awarded by the reference Court. Since identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, these are being decided by a common order. However, the facts are extracted from RFA No.1397 of 1992. Land measuring 26.47 acres in village Sakta Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 28.2.1990 published on the same date followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 13.7.1990, at public expense for public purpose, namely for the construction of Spinning Mill at Sakta Khera, Tehsil Dabwali,District Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Collector ( for short,'the Collector') vide his award dated 7.8.1990 determined the compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for Nehri land and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for Barani land, besides awarding statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. In order to substantiate their cases, the claimants produced PW-1 Balwant Rai Patwari Halqa, Sakta Khera, PW-2 Udey Paul, one of the claimants, besides tendering into evidence sale deed Ex.P-1, copy of award Ex.P-2 in L.A.Case No.6 of 1989, rendered by RFA No.1397 of 1992 3 the Court of Sh.P.L. Khanduja, the then Addl.District Judge,Sirsa, copy of mutation Ex..P-3, certified copy of sale deed dated 27.7. 1990 Ex.P- 4, copy of another sale deed dated 27.7.1990 Ex.P-5, and copy of sale deed dated 16.1.1990 Ex.P-6. As against this, State of Haryana examined Mulakh Raj J.E, Hafed, Sirsa as RW-1, and tendered in evidence a copy of mutation as Ex.R-1 After considering the entire evidence on record, the reference Court found that only sale deed Ex.P-1 which is also Ex, P-6 dated 16.1.1990 executed by one Kuldeep Kumar in respect of one kanal of land in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- comprised in Sq. No.60 of Khewat/Khatoni No.1110/1698 is comparable to the acquired land on the ground that the said sale deed was prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and forms part of land comprised in the same rectangle out of which most of the land has been acquired. The reference Court found that the total value of one acre out of the sale deed Ex.P-1 comes to Rs.80,000/- per acre. Since the sale deed Ex.P-1 was only pertaining to one kanal of land vis-a- vis a large chunk of land i.e.26.47 acres, therefore, the reference Court applied a cut of 1/3rd on account of small piece of land and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.53,300/- per acre with all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. Aggrieved against the award of the reference Court, both the claimants and the State of Haryana have approached this Court. RFA No.1397 of 1992 4 Mr.J.S.Thind, learned counsel for the claimants/appellants while pursuing their appeals has vehemently contended that the reference Court has erred in applying a cut of 1/3rd to the sale deed Ex.P-1. It is submitted that since the land has got potential for being developed as residential/ commercial area , therefore, cut should be of 25%. On this ground, learned counsel for the claimants has prayed for modification of the award for the purpose of enhancement. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samana and others Vs. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam, Municipality AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2298 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhagwati Devi (Died) through LRs 2000 (3) R.C.R.(Civil) 341, to contend that cut should be of 25% instead of 33% which has been applied by the reference Court. Mrs. Mamta Singal Talwar, learned State Counsel while opposing the arguments raised by learned counsel for the claimants for further enhancement of compensation as well as while pursuing their appeals for seeking reduction in the compensation given by the reference Court, has vehemently contended that the reference Court has erred in only examining the aspect of small piece of land vis-a-vis large chunk of land while applying 1/3rd cut but it has not considered development cut. She argued that total cut should not be less than 53%. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have RFA No.1397 of 1992 5 perused the record with their assistance. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that at the time of acquisition, the land was cultivated by the owners themselves and was yielding two crops in a year as it was a fertile land. The said witness also deposed that there was a brick-kiln known as Monga Brick-kiln situated at a distance of 1½ kilometers and a brick-kiln owned by Nathu Ram at a distance of 3 kilometers from the acquired land. He further deposed that Ginning Factory is located at a distance of about 4 kilometers from the acquired land. Similar is the distance of village Shergarh while Sakta Khera village was at a distance of one kilometer. He further deposed that the acquired land is at a distance of 1 ½ murabas from the Municipal Limits of Mandi Dabwali. PW-2 Udey Pal also deposed that there are two brick-kilns near the acquired land. There is also one cotton factory and Monga Filling Station at a distance of 4 kilometers from the acquired land. RW-1 Mulakh Raj also deposed that the land in question is situated at a distance of 9 ½ kilometers from Mandi Dabwali, though in his cross examination, he stated that distance has been measured from Bus Stand of Mandi Dabwali and not from the M.C. boundary. The evidence which has been brought on record by both the parties apparently suggests that at the time of acquisition, the land in question was agricultural. There is no evidence on the record that there was any amenity like roads, drainage, electricity, water supply etc. near the acquired land. In such a situation, I do not find any RFA No.1397 of 1992 6 substance in the arguments raised by Mr. Thind, learned counsel for the claimants that the land in question was fully developed for which no cut should have been applied or cut of 1/4th should be applied. However, it cannot also be ignored that the land in question is found to be only 1-½ muraba away from outer boundary of municipal limits of Mandi Dabwali. Thus, in my view, the reference Court has rightly applied a cut of 1/3rd in the value of sale deed Ex.P-1 and awarded Rs. 53,300/- per acre as compensation. I do not find any error in the judgment of the reference Court either for the purpose of enhancement or for the purpose of reducing compensation that has been awarded. In view of my above discussion, both the appeals filed by the claimants/landowners as well as the State of Haryana are found to be without any merit and the same are hereby dismissed and the award of reference Court is upheld. March 31,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge