R.F.A. No. 539 of 2010 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 539 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.3.2011 Partap and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Mr. P. R. Yadav, Mr. B. S. Mittal, Mr. S. S. Chandok for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 539, 1421 to 1458, 1532 to 1535, 1797 to 1800, 3252 to 3258, 3833, 3870 to 3874, 5074 to 5082, 5211, 5456, 5477 to 5480 of 2010 and 230, 231, 664 to 667 and 1144 of 2011 as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. 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'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 97.64 acres of land in villages Tarkanwali, Shahpuria, Shakar Mandori and Chaharwala for construction of Hisar-Ghaggar Multi Purpose Channel from RD 109000 to 398600 (sub reach RD 109000 to 141023). The same was followed by R.F.A. No. 539 of 2010 [ 2] notification dated 27.10.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Sr. No. Village Nehri Chahi Barani per acre per acre per acre in ` in ` in ` ............................................................................................................... 1. Tarkanwali 1,10,000/- 80,000/- 40,000/- 2. Shahpuria 1,10,000/- 80,000/- 50,000/- 3. Shakar Mandori 1,40,000/- 1,30,000/- 80,000/- 4. Chaharwala 1,10,000/- 80,000/- 60,000/- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the only angle which was not considered by the learned court below was pertaining to the award of compensation on account of severance of land owned by the land owners. In the present case, the acquisition is for the purpose of construction of a channel, which had divided the land owned by the land owners, making it difficult for them to use the two divided portions of land, as the irrigiation facilities have remained on one side. It is difficult to approach the other portion of the land as well. As far as assessment of compensation of the land is concerned, it was submitted that the policy circular of the State dated 28.4.2005 (Ex.P7) was rightly relied upon by the learned court below for the purpose of assessment of compensation considering the fact that the cut off date mentioned therein was 5.3.2005 and the award in the present case was announced on 4.3.2005. There was a difference of only one day. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the policy issued by the government fixing the minimum rates for acquisition of land came into force after the announcement of award in the present case. The same did not have retrospective effect and as such should not be applied for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the R.F.A. No. 539 of 2010 [ 3] acquired land. He further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below was already 4-12 times as compared to the award of the Collector. There is no documentary evidence in the form of sale deeds produced on record by the land owners to show the value of the land in the area. Even if the policy is to be relied upon, there is no justification for award of any compensation on account of severance of land, even if it is there. A policy document is not meant for unjust enrichment of the land owners. It was framed to reduce the litigation and pay the land owners sufficient amount of compensation. However, still even if the amount of compensation paid by the State is more than the value of the land in the area along with statutory benefits, still the land owners continue indulging the avoidable litigation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in determining the same at ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The State came up with a policy issued vide letter dated 28.4.2005 vide which for the acquisition carried on 5.3.2005, the minimum amount of compensation to be paid for the acquisition of land was 5,00,000/- per acre. In the present case, the award of the Collector was announced on 4.3.2005, merely a day prior to the cut off date mentioned in the policy. The issue as to whether the cut off date mentioned in the aforesaid letter dated 28.4.2005 (Ex. P7) is to be considered as the date of award or the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the guidance thereof is available in the policy issued by the State revising the aforesaid policy on 6.4.2007, wherein the cut off date was provided as 22.3.2007 and it was mentioned that the same shall be taken as the date of award. This issue was considered by this court in R.F.A. No. 724 of 2009 –State of Haryana v. Smt. Chandero and others, decided on 13.12.2010 and it was opined that 5.3.2005 is the cut off date for the award of the Collector. Accordingly, the amount of compensation of ` 5,00,000/- per acre as assessed by the learned court below cannot be faulted with. As far as claim of the land owners for award of compensation on account of severance is concerned, considering the facts of the case R.F.A. No. 539 of 2010 [ 4] where on account of policy of the State the land owners have already been awarded much more than the value of the land at the time of acquisition, I do not find any further amount deserves to be awarded to the land owners on that account. No sale deed has been produced on record by them to show the value of the land in the area. The amount of compensation awarded is ranging from 4 to 12 times, the award of the Collector. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.3.2011 mk