R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (1) In the High Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 19.3.2009 (1) R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (O&M) Santokh Singh and others ... Appellants vs Punjab State and others ... Respondents. (2) R.F.A. No. 5789 of 2001 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Kartar Singh and others ...Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 166 of 2002 (O&M) Kartar Singh and others ....Appellants vs Punjab State and others ...Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 421 of 2002 (O&M) Kulwant Singh and another ....Appellants vs Punjab State and another ...Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 677 of 2002 (O&M) Tej Kaur ....Appellant vs Punjab State and others ...Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 678 of 2002 (O&M) Tej Kaur ....Appellant vs Punjab State and another ...Respondents (7) R.F.A. No. 679 of 2002 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh and others ....Appellants vs Punjab State and others ...Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 888 of 2002 (O&M) Smt. Jasbir Kaur ....Appellant vs Punjab State and another ...Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 889 of 2002 (O&M) Darshan Kaur ....Appellant vs The Punjab State and another ...Respondents R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (2) (10) R.F.A. No. 957 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Kulwant Singh and others ...Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 958 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Nand Singh and others ...Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 959 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Santokh Singh and others ...Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 960 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 961 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Guljar Singh and others ...Respondents (15) R.F.A. No. 962 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Gurcharan Singh and another ...Respondents (16) R.F.A. No. 963 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Fateh Singh and others ...Respondents (17) R.F.A. No. 964 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Lachman Singh and others ...Respondents (18) R.F.A. No. 965 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Inder Singh and others ...Respondents R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (3) (19) R.F.A. No. 966 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Smt. Jasbir Kaur and others ...Respondents (20) R.F.A. No. 967 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Green Park Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. and others ...Respondents (21) R.F.A. No. 1064 of 2002 (O&M) Fateh Singh and others ....Appellants vs Punjab State and others ...Respondents (22) R.F.A. No. 1069 of 2002 (O&M) Green Park Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. and others ....Appellants vs The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (23) R.F.A. No. 1565 of 2002 (O&M)\ Union of India ....Appellant vs Fateh Singh and others ...Respondents (24) R.F.A. No. 1996 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Sarwan Singh and another ...Respondents (25) R.F.A. No. 1997 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Tej Kaur and another ...Respondents (26) R.F.A. No. 1998 of 2002 (O&M) Union of India ....Appellant vs Darshan Kaur and others ...Respondents (27) R.F.A. No. 2374 of 2003 (O&M) Nand Singh ....Appellant vs Punjab State and others ...Respondents R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (4) Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal. Present: Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the landowners in RFA Nos. 1069 of 2002 and for respondent no. 1 in RFA No. 967 of 2002. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate, for Union of India. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of 27 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R. F. A. Nos. 166, 421, 677 to 679, 888, 889, 1064, 1065 and 1069 of 2002, and 2374 of 2003 have been filed by the landowners, seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below, whereas R. F. A. Nos. 5789 of 2001, 957 to 967, 1565, 1996 to 1998 of 2002 have been filed by the Union of India, seeking reduction of compensation. The facts have been noticed from R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 29.6.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) acquired 42 acres 3 marlas land in the revenue estates of Village Bibiwala and Bathinda for the construction of Indo-Tibitian Border Police Complex. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) announced his award on 4.7.1990. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,68,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for Village Bibiwala and Bathinda, respectively. It is this award which is under challenge before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence produced by the landowners on record. The sale-deeds produced by them have been wrongly rejected by observing that vendors and vendees thereto have not been produced. He further submitted that the land was strategically located on the out skirts of Bathinda city and beyond that the land had already been acquired for Cantonment Area way back in the year 1973 which clearly established that it was a small portion of land which was sandwiched between the city and the cantonment that was acquired for the purpose of setting up of Indo-Tibitian Border Police Complex. It had great potential for being used R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (5) as residential, commercial and industrial purposes. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India and State of Punjab submitted that the value of the acquired land as has been assessed by the learned court below is totally contrary to the evidence produced by the parties on record. There was no material to assess the market value at Rs. 2,68,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to Village Bibiwala and Rs. 3,00,000/- for the land pertaining to Bathinda. The award of the Collector was quite fair. Unless the vendees and vendors to the sale-deeds are produced, the genuineness of the sale transactions cannot be proved. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as the location of the land is concerned, site plan Ex. AW4/1 is on record which clearly shows that the land is located on the out skirts of Bathinda city. The area close to the acquired land was already developed. As per the site plan, the acquired land abuts Bathinda-Bibiwala-Bhagta and Faridkot Road. The boundary of Bathinda city also adjoins the acquired land. On the southern side of the acquired land across the road, there was Bathinda cantonment. There were some residential houses existing on the acquired land. Green Park Cooperative Housing Building Society Limited is also located close to the acquired land. There are many establishments namely Thermal Plant, Fertilizer Plant, Roshan Lal Oil Mill, Guru Nanak Ice Factory, Spinning Mills, etc. nearby. The acquired land is situated just a distance of 3-4 kilometers from the bus-stand, Bathinda. On one side of the acquired land is Bathinda Cantonment and Government Polytechnic Institute, Bathinda, is at a distance of 3/4 kilometers from the acquired land. In so far as the value of the land is concerned, there is evidence on record in the form of sale-deed Ex. AW7/1 to Ex. AW7/14 whereby 40 kanals of land was sold by various sale-deeds in shares for Rs. 5,57,144/-. The land which was acquired for the purpose of setting up of cantonment in the year 1973 was valued at Rs. 17/- per square yard. In addition to this, there is award Ex. A4 on record whereby for acquisition of land vide notification dated 11.12.1981 for the purpose of setting up of Government Polytechnic Institute at Bathinda. The value was assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The learned court below discarded sale- deeds produced by the landowners placed on record and considered Ex. A4 by granting increase of 12% per annum for the time gap of two notifications while determining the fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,68,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to Village Bibiwal. It was assessed at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to Bathinda. The higher value was determined for the land pertaining to Village Bathinda only for the reasons that it is forming part of R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (6) revenue estate of Village Bathinda otherwise earlier award of the land pertaining to Village Bibiwal was only referred to. It is relevant to mention here that initially the learned court below vide award dated 13.3.1996 had assessed the same value for the acquired land. However, in appeal filed by the Union of India, at that time, the earlier award was set aside and the matter was remitted back for affording opportunity of hearing to the Union of India. In that process, no fresh evidence was led by the Union of India and considering the evidence which was already on record, the learned court below reiterated the earlier award. Now the issue is as to whether the determination of compensation by the learned court below while placing reliance on earlier award, Ex. A4, is in conformity with law or not whereby increase @ 12% per annum has been granted on the value of the land assessed therein for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 11.12.1981. It is not in dispute that the land which was acquired for the purpose of Government Polytechnic is located nearly 3/4 kilometers from the acquired land. Meaning thereby that the same has relevance for the purpose of determination of compensation for the present acquisition. As far as the grant of increase on appreciation of value in the area is concerned, it is evident that for the acquisition carried out beyond the land acquired for the purpose of setting up of cantonment on 10.5.1979, the value was assessed at Rs. 90,000/- per acre for a big chunk of land upto a depth of 500 meters from the main road. It may be mentioned here that in L.P.A. No. 425 of 1989 –Buta Singh and another v. Union of India and another, decided on 18.12.1989, wherein the issue under consideration was determination of fair value of the land acquired for setting up of Cantonment, a Division Bench of this Court had opined that the value of the land on main Bhatinda-Barnala road and Bhatinda-Bibiwala road is not different. The relevant observations are extracted below: “4. The learned counsel for the claimants has sanguinely challenged the observations made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the land situated at Bhatinda-Barnala road has a different market value than the one situated on the road leading to village Bibiwala. It is contended that the observations of the learned Single Judge reproduced from the judgment of the Additional District Judge cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the observations are being made with respect to the potentiality and not the market value. The observation that there is no Railway Station, Mandi, College or Factory in that village cannot be sustained. There is no gain saying that the land in dispute in the revenue estates of villages Mehna, R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (7) Bhucho Kalan and Bhucho Khurd was acquired by the same notification and for the same purpose of establishing a Cantonment. It was not disputed at the bar that the land is situated adjacent to the town of Bhatinda. Even a site plan was shown to us in Court which the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute wherein it has been shown that the land situated at the Bhatinda- Bibiwala Road is within the vicinity of the Bhatinda Municipal Town and is within two kilometers from the Municipal limits of Bhatinda. It can very well be said that the importance of the National Highway can be conveniently termed to have been offset because of the closeness of the land to the municipal limits of Bhatinda. We find no ground to treat the land having opening on a metalled road i.e. Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road differently from the one having opening at Bhatinda-Barnala Road. Blocks in both the cases can be treated as similarly situated with almost similar potentialities. Suburban properties around a municipal town prima facie have the same potentiality unless otherwise shown. Nothing has been pointed out that the town is developing more on the National Highway side than on the vicinity of the Bibiwala road. We are of the considered view that the land falling within a depth of 500 meters of either side on the Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road cannot be treated differently than the one on the Bhatinda-Barnala Road. The importance of being on the important road offsets itself against the importance of being in the vicinity of the Bhatinda town. The lands having been acquired for the same object and purpose and having the same importance cannot be treated fiferently.” For the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 11.12.1981 nearly four years after the acquisition of cantonment, the value was assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. In the similar range is the sale consideration paid by the landowners in the sale-deeds placed on record, Ex. AW7/1 to Ex. AW7/14 which shows good appreciation of value of the land in the area in this period. The learned court below has granted increase of 12% per annum on the value assessed for the acquisition carried out in the year 1981 at a flat rate. Recently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, JT 2008(9) SC 480 had opined that the increase, if any is to be granted for the time gap of the two notifications, the same should be at cumulative rates. There is gap of 6 years 7 months in the two acquisitions. Instead of granting flat rate of 12% as increase, even if the same is considered @ 11% per R. F. A. No. 1065 of 2002 (8) annum at cumulative rate, the value of the acquired land comes to about Rs. 3,00,000/-, i.e., close to the rate already assessed by the learned court below for the land pertaining to village Bhatinda. Accordingly, in my view, the value as assessed by the learned court below cannot be faulted with. In so far as the finding of the learned court below in assessing the value of the land pertaining to Villages Bibiwala and Bathinda at different rates is concerned, I do not find any justification therefor. It is one compact block of land which is located on Bibiwala-Bathinda road. It is per chance in the revenue records part of the land falls in the revenue estate of Village Bibiwala and part in the revenue estate of Village Bathinda that itself will not change the value of the land as it is always the location which is material. The entire land being 42 acres 3 marlas, I do not find any justification for differentiating in the value thereof. Accordingly, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to assess the entire land at Rs. 3 lacs per acre. It is ordered accordingly. The landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above manners. 19 .3.2009 (Rajesh Bindal) mk Judge