RFA No. 337 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 337 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 15.10.2010 Maha Singh and others ...Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeal bearing RFA No. 337 to 343, 412, 413, 490, 491, 494 to 507, 624, 713 to 723, 726 to 737, 739 to 745, 747 to 750, 752 to 759, 799, 800, 1713, 1986 to 1989, 2795, 3136 to 3141, 3211, and 3941 to 3943 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The land owners have filed the appeals against the impugned award seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land measuring 12.79 acres acquired for the purpose of excavating Padana Bas Link Drain vide notification dated 26.7.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Haryana, pertaining to Village Buradehar, Tehsil Julana, District Jind. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.9.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of land vide award dated 30.1.2007. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation of the acquired land of the land owners @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 29.9.2008. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, both the parties are in appeal before this court. Learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the land owners on record while determining the fair value of the acquired land. He further submitted that learned Court below has erred in law while not granting any compensation to the land owners for RFA No. 337 of 2009 (2) bifurcation/severance of their land due to the construction of Padana Bas Link Drain as value of the remaining land has been decreased due to the bifurcation. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that learned Court below has not given any reasoning while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. He further argued that there is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them is located. He further submitted that learned Court below has erred in law while granting ` 8,00,000/- per acre as price of the acquired land on the basis of PW-14/A, the policy issued by the State Government on 6.4.2007 because the notification under Section 4 in the case in hand was issued on 26.7.2006. Therefore, the policy cannot be applied retrospectively, as the same was applicable only for the acquisitions carried subsequent thereto. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 26.7.2006 and the award was announced by the Collector on 30.1.2007. There is no dispute that Government has issued a policy on 6.4.2007 (Ex. P- 14/A), whereby the minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land were further revised as under:- Sr. No. Area Earlier rates fixed by the Government Revised rates i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable are of Gurgaon. ` 15.00 lacs per acre ` 20.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. ` 12.50 lacs per acre. ` 16.00 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. ` 05.00 lacs per acre. ` 08.00 lacs per acre. In my opinion, the aforesaid letter can be considered as a piece of evidence because as per the policy letter the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and this rate are applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 30.1.2007 whereas the policy Ex. P-14/A comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007 just about 2 months later. In my opinion, the policy, Ex. P-14/A can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land for the reason that the process to frame or revise a policy starts in advance, finalisation thereof takes time. Two months difference is not much. Even otherwise, the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of excavating Padana Bas Link Drain. The landowners have not RFA No. 337 of 2009 (3) been awarded any amount on account of severance though their land has been divided into two parts. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out in the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 15.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge