RFA No.2280 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2280 of 1991 and Cross objection No.23-CI of 1992 Date of decision 26.5.2010. State of Punjab and another ...... Appellants. versus Sanjay Kumar ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. K.C.PURI. J. State of Punjab and The Collector, Ropar have filed this appeal for setting aside of the award dated 18.5.1991 passed by learned District Judge, Ropar vide which she has awarded compensation to the claimant. Claimant also preferred Cross objection No.23-CI of 1992 for enhancement of compensation amount as awarded by the learned District Judge, Ropar. Facts when put in brief are like that land of the respondent-claimant measuring about 10 marlas situated in the revenue limits of village Bheora Hadbast No.185 Tehsil and District Ropar RFA No.2280 of 1991 2 was acquired for a public purpose viz for the construction of SYL Canal. After inviting objections of the land owners, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the following rates :- 1. Chahi & Gair Mumkin Rs.71,500/- per acre, boundary wall 2. Barani Rs.55,000/- per acre, and 3. Gair Mumkin Chhapar Rs.40,000/- per acre. The claimant was not satisfied with the amount of compensation claiming that the same was highly inadequate and insufficient as the Land Acquisition Collector had not taken all the factors into consideration at the time of awarding compensation as the land in question is situated on the National Highway. The land in question is also part of the abadi of village Bheora. Following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate, if so to what extent? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? If so to what effect ? OPP. 3. Relief. The parties led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues. The trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, held that the claimant is held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3000/- per marla along with solatium and interest and additional amount as per RFA No.2280 of 1991 3 amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said Award, the appellant-State of Punjab and The Collector, Ropar have preferred the instant appeal for setting aside of the impugned Award whereas claimant preferred Cross objection No.23-CI of 1992 for enhancement of compensation amount as awarded by the learned District Judge, Ropar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have minutely gone through the records of the case with their help. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that District Judge has wrongly relied upon sale deeds Ex.P-1 and P-2. These sale instances pertained to only half marla of land. Such sale instances are often effected to create a false evidence to have exaggerated claim by the land owners. So, the learned District Judge should have ignored Ex.P-1 and P-2. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission also. The acquired land is also a small piece of land i.e. 10 marlas of land situated in the revenue limits of village Bheora. The trial Court observed that from the statement of the witnesses, it is revealed that village is extending towards the acquired land and is hardly at a distance of 50 to 60 feet from the Transport companies. The said land according to the claimant was purchased for residential and commercial purposes and is situated on the national highway. RFA No.2280 of 1991 4 Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that sale instances Ex.R-1 to R-5 have been wrongly ignored by the trial Court. These sale deeds should have been accepted by the trial Court for determining the market value and according to these sale deeds the Collector has rightly assessed the amount of compensation. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission also. The trial Court has rightly observed that sale deeds Ex.R-1 to R-5 have been ignored by the Land Acquisition Collector also and as such those cannot be relied upon. Land owners have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. It is alleged in the grounds of cross objections that market value of the acquired land was Rs.8000/- per marla. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in those cross objections. Sale deeds Ex.P-1 and P-2 have been relied upon by the Trial Court and after giving due weightage to those sale deeds and taking into account the pros and cons of all these sale deeds, the amount of compensation has rightly been assessed as Rs.3000/- per marla. It cannot be said that trial Court has committed any error in calculating the amount of compensation. In view of the above discussion, the appeal as well as cross- objections fail and the same have been dismissed. RFA No.2280 of 1991 5 A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE May 26th, 2010 sv