R.F.A. No. 549 of 1989 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: March 10 ,2010 1. R.F.A. No. 549 of 1989 (O&M) Haryana Warehousing Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant v. Murari Lal (deceased) through LRs .. Respondent 2. R. F. A. No. 762 of 1989 (O&M) Murari Lal (deceased) through LRs .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for the Warehousing Corporation Ltd. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the land owner. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. No. 549 of 1989 has been filed by the Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (for short, `the Corporation') seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. R.F.A. No. 762 of 1989 has been filed by the land owner seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 549 of 1989. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 19.12.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired the land in village Nangal Chowdhri for construction of a Warehouse. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 28.3.1985, assessed the market value of the land at R.F.A. No. 549 of 1989 [ 2] Rs. 38,000/- per acre. The land owner feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land by granting compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owner submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence produced on record by him to substantiate his plea to the effect that value of the land on the date of acquisition was not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre, whereas the learned court below has merely granted Rs. 60,000/- per acre. The location of the land is not in dispute. The same is on Narnaul-Kotputli road, which is quite a busy road. The same is located nearly half kolomter from the abadi of village Nangal Chowdhri, which was a growing kasba. There were constructions in the vicinity of the acquired land. Sale deed (Ex. P3), which was for two kanals of land sold @ Rs. 5,40,000/- per acre, was not at all considered by the learned court below. The land had great future potential considering its location on the main road and also the fact that population of the township was growing on that side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the learned court below in the present case has awarded compensation without there being any basis. The evidence produced by the Corporation has not even been discussed, though referred to, in terms of which even the award of the Collector was much more than the value of the land on the date of acquisition. The sale deed, sought to be relied upon by the land owner, is not relevant considering the fact that it was for a small piece of land located on road close to the populated area. There was no evidence on record to substantiate the plea that there were certain trees existing on the acquired land, but still the learned court below granted a sum of Rs. 4,000/- therefor, which deserves to be set aside. It has come in the cross-examination of PW1-Mahesh Kumar Draftsman that there was no construction activity in the vicinity of the acquired land the area close thereto was being used for agriculture purposes when the same was acquired. The place where the acquisition was carried out was merely a village. When the acquisition was carried out, there was no such pressure on the land especially in the direction of the village on which the land in question is situated. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, there is not much dispute about the same considering the fact that site plan (Ex. P1) placed on record by the land owner depicts the same. It is evident therefrom that it is located about R.F.A. No. 549 of 1989 [ 3] half kilometer from the abadi of village Nangal Chowdhri. The fact that the Corporation had to construct a Warehouse in village Nangal Chowdhri, where even a Grain Market was also located, shows that it was a place where the arrival of the foodgrains may be good enough which required its storage by the procurement agencies in the Warehouse. As far as sale deeds produced by the State are concerned, the same being Ex. R1 to Ex. R4, in my opinion, none of them is relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. The reason therefor is that location of the land pertaining to all the sale deeds is far off from the acquired land, as is evident from site plan (Ex. R5) and they have no connectivity even from the road, whereas the land in question is located on main road. For the purpose of assessment of compensation, reliance even on the sale deed produced by the land owner (Ex. P3) would also not be quite fair, considering the fact that the same is located at a crossing of road emanating from Narnaul- Kotputli road and adjoining the populated area of the village. The same certainly at that stage had a commercial value. The location and value thereof cannot possibly be compared with the land in question, which was at a distance of about half kilometer therefrom, which may be substantial at that place considering the fact that Nangal Chowdhri was a village, though as far as cities and Metros is concerned, the distance of half kilometer may not be that relevant. It is also not in dispute that close to the acquired land, there was no construction activity at that time. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the estimation of Rs. 60,000/- per acre as value of the acquired land made by the learned court below cannot be faulted with and the same is accordingly upheld. As far as award of Rs. 4,000/- on account of value of the trees standing on the acquired land is concerned, considering the amount being meager and secondly the claim to that effect was set up by the land owner in his claim petition, which was corroborated in his evidence while appearing as a witness. No question was put by the State to the claimant on this aspect in his cross- examination, meaning thereby that this was not sought to be disputed. Considering the aforesaid fact, even award of Rs. 4,000/- on account of compensation for trees standing on the acquired land is also upheld. For the reasons mentioned above, both the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 10,2010 mk