R.F.A. No. 448 of 2004 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 448 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.9.2010 Kasturi and others .. Appellants vs State of Haryana and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 448, 449, 451 to 469 of 2004 as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The landowners have filed these appeals seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 448 of 2004. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 3.098 acres situated within the revenue estate of village Kalupur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 16.5.1996 published on 16.7.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of bye-pass from Sonepat-Rathdana road to Meerut-Sonepat road in Sonepat District. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 19.8.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,00,032/- per acre for chahi and ` 2,20,032/- per acre for johar. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. The learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide award dated 26.9.2003, upheld the award of the Collector and dismissed the reference petitions filed by the landowners. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals by the landowners. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led on record by the appellants. In fact the acquired land was surrounded by various residential colonies, institutions, R.F.A. No. 448 of 2004 [ 2] cinema, ITI, District Welfare Office, Power House. Even a park had also been developed in the vicinity. The value thereof at the time of acquisition was not less than ` 700/- per square yards. It was located within the municipal limits and had great future potential as the land in the area was not being sold in acres but in square yards. Assessing the value of the acquired land in acres, where the small plots were being sold for residential, commercial purposes, would be totally unreasonable. Sale-deed, Ex. P-2, was relied upon and it was submitted that vide aforesaid sale deed, land measuring 109 square yards was sold on 17.6.1988 for a consideration of ` 15,000/- i.e. ` 6,66,055/- per acre. Considering the time gap till acquisition, the landowners are also entitled to increase thereon @ 12% per annum. It was further submitted that even if the land dealt with in the sale-deed was of small plot, the same is valuable instance considering the fact that the acquisition was for the purpose of construction of bye-pass and the total area acquired of village Kalupur was 3.098 acres, which was owned by 22 persons. Meaning thereby the area owned by different landowner was quite small. He further referred to the oral evidence of PW1 Ram Lal Ex- Patwari, who categorically stated that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits and there are development activities in the vicinity. To similar effect was the oral evidence of the other landowners. In addition to the aforesaid evidence, reference was also made to Ex. P-11, a letter issued by the District Collector, fixing minimum rate of the land in the area at ` 250/- per square yard. If the aforesaid evidence is considered, the impugned award of the learned court below deserves to be set aside and the amount of compensation payable to the landowners enhanced further. Learned counsel for the land owners relied upon judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2335 of 2004—Hari Kishan v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 8.10.2009 for acquisition of land for the same purpose pertaining to village Kabirpur. In the aforesaid judgment, this court upheld the award of the learned court below therein assessing the value of the acquired land @ ` 120/- per square yard. The submission is that the land in the present case is adjoining to the acquired land, as the area of the acquired land of village Kalupur is 3.098 acres, whereas for village Kabirpur, the same was 2.33 acres. Placing reliance thereupon, it was submitted that the land owners in the present case at least are entitled to the same amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. R2), produced by the State, was near the acquired land R.F.A. No. 448 of 2004 [ 3] whereby land measuring 14 biswas was sold on 6.2.1996 for a consideration of ` 40,000/-. This would be the best piece of evidence. The consideration paid therein is less than the award of the Collector. Meaning thereby the award of the Collector was fully justified as the same was fixed by considering all the sale deeds registered in the area. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of construction of bye pass road from Sonepat-Rathdhna Road to Meerut-Sonepat Road, land pertaining to three villages, namely, Kalupur, Kabirpur and Sadipur was acquired. As far as the award of the Collector is concerned, for the land pertaining to village Kalupur, which is subject-matter of the present appeal, the value was assessed @ ` 4,00,032/- per acre for Chahi kind of land and ` 2,20,032/- per acre for Johar, whereas for the land pertaining to village Kabirpur, the same was assessed @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for Chahi and Nehri kind of land. This Court in Hari Kishan's case (supra) upheld the award of the learned court below assessing the value of the land pertaining to village Kabirpur, which is adjoining to village Kalupur, @ ` 120/- per square yard for Chahi/Nehri kind of land. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the same would be the best piece of judicial precedent on which reliance should be placed upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Hari Kishan's case (supra), the value of Chahi/Nehri kind of land in the present case is assessed @ ` 120/- per square yard. As far as the quality of land, which is termed as Johar, for which the award of the Collector was also quite less as compared to the value for Chahi/Nehri kind of land, in my opinion, the same also deserves to be enhanced in the same proportion. The same would come out to ` 3,19,416/- per acre, which is round off to ` 3,20,000/- per acre, as against ` 2,20,032/- assessed by the Collector. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 20, 2010 mk