RFA No.3206 of 1993 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.3206 of 1993 Date of Decision: 30.4.2009 Vidya Sagar ..Appellant. Vs. State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Mamta Singal Talwar, AAG Haryana for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Identical question of law and facts are involved in these eleven Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.3206, 3295, 3296, 3299, 3312 to 3314, 3356, 3489, 3510 of 1993 and 168 of 1994 filed by claimants against the award of Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari which are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA No.3206 of 1993 titled as Vidya Sagar Vs. State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Broadly, the facts of the case are that land measuring 5.22 acres situated in village Radaur, Hadbast No.45, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was acquired vide notification dated 12.1.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') for the RFA No.3206 of 1993 -2 - public purpose, namely, for remodelling of Radaur drain. The Land Acquisition Collector, Haryana, PWD (IB), Ambala City (for short `the Collector') vide his award dated 20.11.1986, assessed compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.21,000/- per acre for Chahi land as well as for Gair Mumkin Chahi Pukta land, @ Rs.11,000/- per acre for Sailab and @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Rasta type of lands. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants filed Objections to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act which were referred to the Civil Court, in which it was alleged that value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2 lacs per acre as the land is situated near the Abadi of the village having potential value for being used for commercial and residential purposes. In reply, the respondent stated that the claimants had demanded only Rs.1 lac per acre before the Collector because the land in question is not in the village Abadi but it is low lying and prone to flood and seepage during rainy season and it is acquired for the benefit of the cultivators which falls on the western side of Yamuna Canal. The drain which is sought to be constructed would help in removing the seepage. It is also averred that land in question cannot be used for commercial and residential purposes due to water seepage. In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants tendered four sale deeds i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. All the four sale deeds are tabulated as under : Exhibit Date Area Value P1 3.8.1982 1 Marla Rs.2500/- P2 2.2.1982 1 Kanal Rs.30,000/- P3 5.6.1981 1 Marla Rs.1500/- RFA No.3206 of 1993 -3 - P4 28.5.1980 2 Marla Rs.20,000/- On the other hand, the respondent State relied upon the following sale deeds: Exhibit Date Area Value per acre Ex.PA 30.6.1981 40 Kanals Rs.21,000/- Ex.RB 17.11.1981 4 Kanals Rs.20,952/- Ex.RC 16.6.1981 21K-7M Rs.12,000/- Ex.RD 8.12.1981 5K-4M Rs.12,671/- Ex.RE 13.2.1981 1K-7M Rs.11,852/- The learned Reference Court discarded all the sale deeds produced by the claimants on the ground that those are pertaining to very small piece of land which is not meant for agricultural purposes. It was also observed that location of the sale deeds has not been explained as to whether those are situated inside the village or outside the village. It was further observed that since the sale instances are of small piece of land, therefore, it could very well be imagined that they are meant for commercial or residential purposes and are near the village Abadi. Insofar as the sale deeds produced by the respondents are concerned, it was found that maximum price of the land is Rs.21,000/- per acre and as such, it was ordered that the claimants should be awarded compensation @ Rs.25,000/- per acre for Chahi land as well as Gair Mumkin Chahi Pukta lands and Rs.15,000/- per acre for Sailab as well as Gair Mumkin Rasta type of lands. The claimants were also awarded the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of Amended Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended RFA No.3206 of 1993 -4 - that the learned Reference Court has committed an error while discarding the sale deeds produced by the claimants as well as erred in not appreciating the award Ex.P5 pertaining to the acquisition of land of village Radaur itself. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12.1.1982, the sale deeds Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are post notification sale deeds, the sale deeds Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are only pertaining to 1 Marla and 2 Marlas of land respectively, which are very small piece of land and are not depicted by way of a site plan as to whether those are the part of Abadi Deh. It is argued that 1 Marla or 2 Marlas of land cannot be equated with 5.22 acres of land, which is agricultural in nature, therefore, the learned Reference Court has not committed any error in discarding the sale deeds produced by the claimants. In respect of award Ex.P5, it is submitted that notification in that case was issued on 24.2.1984 whereby 4 acres 2 kanals 4 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of village Radaur was acquired for the construction of Sub-Tehsil Office. It is submitted that the Collector had announced the compensation on 25.6.1986 and as such, market value of the acquired land was assessed in different categories as per its nature and kind. The learned Reference Court after taking into consideration three sale instances Ex.A9 to Ex.A11 assessed the compensation. Thus, it is submitted that facts and circumstances in the award Ex.P5 are altogether different from the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such, the said award cannot be relied upon by the claimants. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions RFA No.3206 of 1993 -5 - raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Insofar as the sale deeds Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are concerned, I do not find any error in the approach of the learned Reference Court for not placing reliance upon these sale deeds because two sale deeds Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are post notification and two sale deeds Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 pertaining to very small piece of land i.e. 1 marla and 2 marlas respectively which obviously meant either for the purpose of residence or commercial and thus, cannot be equated with the acquired agricultural land. Moreover, the claimants have failed to lead any evidence to indicate the location of the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 for the benefit of the Court to ascertain as to whether those are near the acquired land or forms part of the Abadi Deh. Similarly, award Ex.P5 has no relevance for decision of the present case because firstly, notification in the said case is dated 24.2.1984 i.e. about 2 years subsequent to the present acquisition and the compensation that has been assessed, is based upon documentary evidence which has been led by the claimants in the said case. Thus, in my view, there is no error in the award of the learned Reference Court in relying upon sale deeds produced by the State which pertains to agricultural land whereby large chunk of land has been sold. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the award of the learned Reference Court. Thus, all the appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 30.4.2009 Judge Meenu