R.F.A. No. 1634 of 1984 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1634 of 1984 Date of decision: August 28 ,2008 Hamir Singh and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are before this Court against award dated 27.1.1984 passed by learned District Judge, Hissar, whereby the award of the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') on account of acquisition of land was upheld and no enhancement was ordered. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 19 kanals 10 marlas belonging to the predecessor of the appellants was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The Collector gave award of Rs. 13,500/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, where keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, the award of the Collector was upheld. Before I proceed to consider the case on merits, it would be appropriate to notice the various orders passed by this Court. On 19.5.2004, this Court passed the following order: “ Learned counsel for the respondents-Haryana is directed to produce on record a copy of the notification de-acquiring the acquired land of the appellants and to show as to why the compensation paid to many of the claimants have been taken back. To come up on 21.7.2004.” R.F.A. No. 1634 of 1984 [2] When the case was taken on 21.7.2004, the following order was passed: “ Learned State counsel seeks time to place on record a copy of the notification de-acquiring the acquired land of the appellants. Adjourned to 25.8.2004. However, it is made clear that if on the next date of hearing, copy of de-notification is not placed on record, the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits.” Still further, on 25.8.2004, the following order was passed: “ Vide orders dated May 19, 2004, the learned State counsel was directed to place on record a copy of the notification, de-acquiring the acquired land of the appellants, but till date, the required notification has not been placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that money awarded to the appellants has been taken back by the State of Haryana, but they have not been handed over the possession of their land. The State counsel is directed to place on record a copy of the notification de-acquiring the acquired land of the appellants and also hand over the possession of their land, pursuant to issuance of notification of de-acquiring the land, to the appellants, within two months from today. The necessary certificate and a report of handing over the possession to the appellants, as aforesaid, be placed on record by the next date. Adjourned to 27.10.2004.” Thereafter, the case was adjourned for a number of times for the purpose, but till date neither any document nor any affidavit has been placed on record clarifying the position as had emerged from the contention of the parties regarding de-notification of the land in question. Accordingly, I proceeded to hear the case for consideration as to whether the compensation awarded to the appellants was just and fair. R.F.A. No. 1634 of 1984 [3] Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon two sale deeds (Ex. P.1 and P.2) to submit that the value of the land as on the date of notification was not less than Rs. 70,000/- per acre and the award determining the value thereof at merely Rs. 13,500/- per acre is quite on the lower side and deserves enhancement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deeds placed on record by the appellants in support of their claim are for small pieces of land measuring 4 marlas and 11 marlas which cannot be relied upon for just and fair assessment of compensation. Even otherwise, the land forming part of the sale deeds (Exs. P.1 and P.2) being near the abadi area are liable to be ignored. In response to the contentions of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land of the appellants may be a bit away from the abadi, but the same is situated on the main highway leading from Ratia to Tohana. In fact, the entire front portion of the land of the appellants abutting the main road has been taken away leaving even no passage. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out that any other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is pending or decided by this Court. A perusal of site plan (Ex. R.4) which depicts the location of land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P.1 and P.2) shows that both are situated near the village abadi. Land shown in sale deed (Ex. P.1) is just near Ratia Distributory. As per facts noticed in the sale deed regarding the location thereof, the same is abutting a rasta. The land in Ex. P.2 is almost similarly situated. It is not disputed that the acquired land in dispute is part of Rect. No. 242 and is situated on main Ratia-Tohana road. There is another sale deed on record, i.e., Ex. P.3. The transaction therein was entered into on 28.5.1981, namely, three months after the cut-off date, when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. An area of 8 kanals and 5 marlas of land was sold vide sale deed (Ex. P.3) for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. The location is quite near to the land in dispute. However, the same cannot be considered as an evidence for determining the value of the land for the R.F.A. No. 1634 of 1984 [4] simple reason that the transaction was entered into three months after the date of acquisition of the land. In addition to the evidence, referred to above, there is no other material on record which could enable this Court to determine the value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land of the appellants, as is evident from chak plan (Ex. R.4), is situated on Ratia-Tohana road. The learned court below, while assessing the compensation payable for the acquired land, primarily relied upon the evidence led by the respondent which is in the form of mutation. The same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation payable on account of acquisition of land. Even otherwise, the highest of the value, as is evident from the mutation relied upon by the State, was less than the award of the Collector. Section 25 of the Act even debars the consideration of an evidence which is showing value less than the award given by the Collector as the compensation awarded by the Reference Court cannot be less than the amount awarded by the Collector. Still the fact cannot be lost sight of that it is the front portion of the land belonging to the appellants and situated on metalled road leading from Ratia to Tohana which has been acquired, the future potentiality of the land deserves consideration. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the value of land on the date of acquisition should be assessed at Rs. 18,000/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as are available in the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs throughout. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 28, 2008 mk