RFA No. 1533 of 1994 (1) In the High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. RFA No. 1533 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2009 Kartar Singh ... Appellant vs The State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr. M. S. Bedi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Punjab vide notification dated 12.1.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired land within the revenue estates of Village Ghoman, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, for construction of road. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the land and structures existing thereon at Rs. 45,700/-. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.12.1993, upheld the award of the Collector. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land in question was strategically located. The structure was hardly at a distance of 10-15 karms from the main bazar and chowk, where Amritsar-Siri Hargobindpur, Ghoman- Gurdaspur and Ghoman-Kartarpur roads bifurcate. Every facility was available near the acquired land. The compensation paid to the appellant was not adequate as the value of the acquired land located on the road was much more than what was assessed. Though in the objections filed by the landowner claim was with regard to the valuation of land also, however, the learned court below recorded a finding observing that the Collector had not referred the question of valuation of land for determination by the court. As far as the valuation of the land and also damages on various other counts is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the objection petition filed before the court below claiming compensation for the acquired land and the shops constructed thereon. He submitted that even if there was no evidence RFA No. 1533 of 1994 (2) produced by the landowner with regard to the valuation of land and also the structure standing thereon, this court should take judicial notice of the fact that the land being strategically located and also the fact that the Collector had never assessed adequate compensation and some enhancement on that count is required. It was further submitted that the landowner in the present case have not been paid any statutory benefits as are available under the Act. Solatium and interest, even on the enhanced amount as has been directed by the learned court below, were not paid. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that this is a case of no evidence. Even if it is considered that the appellant has raised the issue regarding the valuation of land in the objections filed and the same were referred to the learned court below for consideration, still to substantiate the claim made no evidence was led. In the absence thereof, no enhancement can possibly be made by the learned court below. As far as the valuation of superstructure of the shops is concerned, whatever claimed by the appellant in the objections, has been directed to be paid. It does not call for any interference whatsoever by this court. As regards the issue with regard to statutory benefits is concerned, learned counsel for the State did not join this issue. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the valuation of the land is concerned, a perusal of the objections filed by the appellant before the Collector shows that the land owner had raised objection regarding the valuation of the land as well as the superstructure. Accordingly, in my opinion, the learned court below had gone wrong in recording a finding that there was no reference with regard to valuation of the land. However, the fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had not led evidence to substantiate the plea raised by him that the value of the land on the date of acquisition was much more than what was assessed by the Collector. His only submission was that the court should have taken note of the pleadings in the form of objections filed by the appellant to determine the fair value of the acquired land, is totally misconceived. To substantiate the plea raised in the objections, the appellant was required to lead evidence. In the absence thereof, this court is not in a position to opine that the award of the Collector with regard to the valuation of land calls for any interference by this court. Even otherwise, in the statement of PW1 Sham Lal Junior Engineer, produced by the appellant, it was stated that the value of the property of the appellant when it was acquired was Rs. 45,700/-. The learned court below had RFA No. 1533 of 1994 (3) assessed the same value as was stated by witness of the appellant. However, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owner to the effect that on the amount of enhanced compensation, as was determined payable to the appellant, statutory benefits have not been awarded. It is not disputed that the Collector had awarded a sum of Rs. 9,005/- for two shops and on re-assessment, the value of these shops was assessed at Rs. 45,700/-. The claimant has already received a sum of Rs. 14,648.43 and in addition thereto, the learned court below determined Rs. 31,060.57 as additional compensation on which statutory benefits, as are available under the Act, were not granted which cannot possibly be denied to the appellant, as is fairly conceded by learned counsel for the State. Accordingly, while upholding additional amount of compensation awarded to the appellant, it is directed that he shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available thereon. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 6.5.2009 mk