RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.10.2011 Umed Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2881 of 2011 (O&M) Smt. Kalwanti and ors. ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1598 of 2011 (O&M) Smt. Kalwanti and ors. ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1599 of 2011 (O&M) Hawa Singh and ors. ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1600 of 2011 (O&M) Ram Kumar ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1601 of 2011 (O&M) Hari Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 2 RFA No.1602 of 2011 (O&M) Satbir and ors. ......Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vijay Singh Kajla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Hitinder Singh Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the respondent in RFA No.2384 of 2011. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Civil Misc. Applications For the reasons recorded, which have not been rebutted despite opportunity, the delay ranging between 250 to 266 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Regular First Appeals This judgment shall dispose of 7 appeals i.e. RFA No.1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602, 1267 and 2881 of 2011 filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of compensation and which have arisen out of one common award of the Reference Court. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.11.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the “Act”) the State of Haryana acquired 10.88 acres of land situated in village Hindwan, Hadbast No.56, Tehsil and District Hisar for RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 3 construction of Hisar Ghaggar Multiple Channel (for short the “Channel) The said notification was followed by a declaration dated 26.4.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land initially at ` 1,40,000/- per acre for Nehri kind of land and `1,00,000/- per acre for Tal/Banzar kind of land. However, later on vide award dated 28.4.2005 (Ex.R-3) the amount of compensation was enhanced to ` 5,00,000/- per acre irrespective kind of land by the Land Acquisition Collector itself. Dissatisfied from the aforesaid award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants/appellants filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Act which were referred to the Reference Court, Before the Reference Court, the claimants had submitted that the acuqired land was having much fertility and because of the acquisition, the land has been severed and they cannot enjoy the residual land. Moreover, the market value of the land was at the time of acquisition was much higher and thus, they were entitled to a much higher compensation. These references were contested by the respondent-State on the ground that amount awarded was just and adequate which has been fixed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors for determination of the market value of the land. Vide impugned award dated 23.12.2009, the petitions were dismissed. The relevant part of the award of the Reference Court reads thus: “In order to decide the question of compensation, the reference court is required to decide, what was the market value of the acquired land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Indisputably, in this case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17.11.2003. Again there is no RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 4 dispute, the market value of the land is to be determined on the basis of sale instances, its location, its potentiality, which may be residential, commercial or agriculture and as envisaged under Section 24 of the Act, no subsequent fact is to be considered for assessment of the market price of the acquired land. The petitioners have alleged, on the date of publication of notification, the acquired land was not fetching market price less than of Rs.10 lac per acre. The petitioners have not been able to prove exact location of acquired land from District Headquarter Hisar. The petitioners have not produced on record any sale instance showing the land abutting to the acquired land or any nearby area was fetching price more than Rs.10 lac per acre. The Govt. instructions Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 cannot be taken into consideration, for assessment of market price, all being published after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. So far award Ex.P17, passed by this Court is concerned, it cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners. Firstly, the acquired land is not abutting to the village Arya Nagar. Only boundary of village Hindwan is abutting to the boundary of village Arya Nagar. Secondly while passing the award Ex.P17, certain sale instances, relied upon by the petitioners in that case, were also considered by this Court, but in the case in hand, the petitioners have not placed on record any sale instance. Nearby the acquired land, no commercial establishment, industry, factory, research institutions, infrastructural institutions like school, college, hospital is situated. Neither, there is any evidence on record to prove this fact. From the own evidence of the petitioners, it is ample clear, acquired land had agriculture potentiality only, for which LAC has awarded adequate and reasonable compensation. On this score petitioners are not entitled to enhancement of compensation. So far compensation on the ground of severance, RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 5 trees, tube-well, engine, super structure etc. is concerned, there is no evidence on record, that due to acquisition, the land of the petitioners has been bifurcated. Petitioners gave suggestion to V.K. Aggarwal, RW1, with regard to bifurcation of their land and he answered in negative. So far trees, super structure, other paraphernalia on the acquired land is concerned, there is no iota of evidence, to prove this fact. According to the respondents, one Ramji Lal son of Pat Ram, had one room in part of acquired land, and he has been compensated vide receipt Ex.R4 and no suggestion given to RW1 suggesting that the said Ramji Lal had not been compensated. Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation on the ground of severance, super structure and other paraphernalia. Assuming the LAC awarded unreasonable and inadequate compensation to the petitioners, while pronouncing the award No.16-II dated 25.3.2005 Ex.R2, vide which LAC assessed the market price of the acquired land, at the rate of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre of Nehri kind and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre of tal/banjar etc. plus statutory benefits. Later on, LAC pronounced the supplementary award Ex.R3 dated 28.4.2005 and enhanced the price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre irrespective of its kind plus statutory benefits. Compensation at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- per acre plus statutory benefits means, they have been awarded compensation more than Rs.7,00,000/- per acre,which is very reasonable. None of the petitioners being aggrieved from the supplementary award Ex.R3 dated 28.4.2005 filed any reference under Section 18 of the Act nor they made prayer to amend the petition to question the supplementary award Ex.R3. On this score, all the petitions are not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act. Issue goes against the petitioners.” RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 6 Aggrieved from the aforesaid dismissal of their claim by the Reference Court, the appellants have filed the instant appeals. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to many villages was acquired vide notification dated 17.11.2003 for construction of a Channel. It is also not in dispute that the land of village Arya Nagar which was also acquired vide same notification and for the same purpose was assessed at Rs.7,00,000/- per acre by this Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2010 passed in RFA No.3837 of 2009. It may also be noticed at this stage that the acquired land of village Arya Nagar and village Hindwan is of same kind and is agricultural in nature. Learned State counsel could not point out any evidence on record to show any difference between the kinds of the land of two villages i.e. Arya Nagar and Hindwan. Admittedly, the boundary of village Hindwan abuts to the boundary of village Arya Nagar. However, while declining the higher claim of the landowners, the Reference Court has observed that the claimants cannot be granted parity with the land of village Arya Nagar as the acquired land does not abut the village Arya Nagar. The aforesaid observation of the Reference Court cannot be sustained in view of the fact that indisputably, boundaries of village Hindwan and village Hindwan abuts each other. If that is so, it cannot be assumed that the land of both the villages which has been acquired for a Channel was not contiguous to each other. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that there being no evidence to distinquish the land of village Hindwan from the land of village Arya Nagar, the landowners/appellants RFA No.1267 of 2011 (O&M) 7 are entitled to the parity of compensation with the landowners of village Arya Nagar whose land was also acquired for the same purpose. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana has made an effort to resist the claim of the appellants on the ground that the land of Arya Nagar was closer to Hisar whereas the land belonging to village Hindwan goes farther from Hisar as compared to the land of village Arya Nagar. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that land of village Arya Nagar was assessed at a much higher rate only because of its proximity to Hisar. Neither there is any evidence on record to show the distance between Hisar and Arya Nagar and between Arya Nagar and Hindwan. Counsel for the appellant has also sought compensation on account of severance of their land. However, there is nothing on record to show that any land of the claimants has been severed. Thus, the said claim is declined. In view of the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the appellants are granted compensation at the rate of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre as granted to the landowners of village Arya Nagar vide RFA No.3873 of 2009 decided on 23.12.2010. No other point is urged. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected appeals. October 20, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE