R. F. A No. 2656 of 1997 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 29.4.2009 1. RFA No. 2656 of 1997 (O&M) Rasal Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Haryana State and another ..... Respondents 2. RFA No. 2673 of 1997 (O&M) Rasal Singh ..... Appellant vs Haryana State and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. P. Dhull, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2656 and 2673 of 1997 filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Both are taken up together as the same are arise out of a common acquisition. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 2656 of 1997. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 15.12.1972 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquired land situated within revenue estate of Village Dhand, Had Bast No. 9, Tehsil Kaithal, for construction of road from Dhand to Jandola. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 31.3.1986 determined the value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for barani, Rs. 20,000/- per acre for gair mumin bara and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for gair mumkin khal. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the learned Collector. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below has not considered the evidence led by them on record in the form of sale-deeds, Ex. P6 to P8 vide which plots were sold @ Rs. 38/- per square yard. These sale- deeds were registered much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of R. F. A No. 2656 of 1997 -2- the Act. Even if the sale-deeds so produced by the landowners are of small pieces of plots, a reasonable cut can very well be applied thereon for the purpose of determination of the fair value. The land in question was located quite close to the city and other rice mills were located in the vicinity. It was further submitted that the land in question is located quite close to the abadi of village Dhand which was a big urbanised area having grain and vegetable markets, cinema, college, godowns, bus-stand, etc. It has great future potential for urbanisation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence led by the landowners cannot possibly be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that the land pertaining to the sale-deeds has not been located on any site plan produced by the landowners. The land at the time of acquisition was of agricultural kind whereas sale-deeds produced must be part of some urbanised area. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Three sale-deeds have been produced on record by the landowners to claim that the value of the acquired land as has been determined by the Collector is not just and fair. These sale-deeds pertain to small plots measuring from 40 to 50 square yards. No site plan on record has been referred to by learned counsel for the landowners to show the location of the plots pertaining to the aforesaid sale- deeds. In the absence of which it is not possible for this court to rely there upon as the location and value thereof cannot be compared. Onus to prove that the value of the acquired land, as has been determined by the Collector, was not just and fair, is always on the landowners which is to be discharged by leading positive evidence. Mere oral statements that it is close to city and other industrial establishments, cannot be made basis for determination of fair value of the acquired land, unless there is no evidence to show as to at what rate the other similarly situated land in the vicinity, was being sold. If the aforesaid sale-deeds are taken out of consideration, it is a case of no evidence and without there being any evidence on record, this court cannot be opined that value determined by the Collector and upheld by the learned court below, calls for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 29.4.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge