R. F. A No. 178 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 178 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.2.2010 Hakam Singh and others ... Appellants vs State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have approached this court for enhancement of compensation for the acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that State of Punjab acquired the land within the revenue estate of Village Bhateri, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, vide notification dated 7.12.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), for the construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 72,990/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for barani, and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for banjar/ Gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 10.2.1989, upheld the award of the Collector. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the only evidence produced by the landowners in the present case for determination of fair value of the acquired land was Ex. P-1, a sale-deed dated 24.6.1985 whereby 8 marlas land was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at an average price of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. It is further noticed that the land pertaining to the sale-deed Ex. P-1 was located in the abadi area, meaning thereby that it was a residential plot of small dimension. The acquired land is of agricultural nature which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal which is far off from abadi. There is no other R. F. A No. 178 of 1990 (2) documentary evidence on record. As against this the State has produced three sale-deeds Ex. R-1 to R-3 showing that the value in the area was not more than Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The same was not considered by the learned court below for the reason that the award of the Collector was more than that. Keeping in view the above facts, I do not find that any case is made out for further increase of the compensation payable to the landowners, Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 17.2.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge