R.F.A. No. 1742 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 17, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 1742 of 1994 Charan Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 1586 of 1994 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Charan Singh .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 1587 of 1994 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Randhir Singh .. Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 1735 of 1994 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Shamsher Singh .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 1736 of 1994 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants v. Mohinder Singh .. Respondent (6) R.F.A. No. 1743 of 1994 Shamsher Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 1742 of 1994 [2] (7) R.F.A. No. 1744 of 1994 Mohinder Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 1745 of 1994 Randhir Singh .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Kumar Singhal, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned eight appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 1742 to 1745 of 1994 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 1586, 1587, 1735 and 1736 of 1994 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 1742 of 1994. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 9.8.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the land in question situated in village Samalkha was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sub Tehsil Building, Samalkha. The same was followed by notification dated 7.8.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land.Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value at Rs. 83/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the compensation, as determined by the learned court below for acquisition of land, is R.F.A. No. 1742 of 1994 [3] not in conformity with the material placed on record by them in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P1 to Ex. P10), which clearly established that market value of the acquired land was much more than what was determined. Copy of sale deed (Ex. P1) dated 11.4.1986 shows that land measuring 200 square yards was sold for Rs. 30,000/-, at an average price of Rs. 150/- per square yard. Vide sale deed (Ex. P2) dated 3.4.1987, land measuring 20 square yards was sold for Rs. 10,000/- at an average price of Rs. 500/- per square yards. As per sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 28.11.1986, land measuring 200 square yards was sold for Rs. 48,000/- at an average price of Rs. 240/- per square yards. Vide sale deed (Ex. P4) dated 8.10.1987, land measuring 20 square yards was sold for Rs. 10,000/- and the price per square yard comes to Rs. 500/-. Vide sale deed (Ex. P5) dated 1.4.1986, land measuring 11 square yards was sold for Rs. 4,000/- at an average price of Rs. 365/- per square yard, whereas vide sale deed (Ex. P6) dated 11.8.1986, land measuring 171 square yards was sold for Rs. 49,800/- at an average price of Rs. 293/- per square yards. As per sale deed (Ex. P7) dated 19.5.1987, land measuring 57 square yards was sold for Rs. 18,000/- at an average price of Rs. 320/- per square yard. Vide sale deed (Ex. P8) dated 26.6.1987, land measuring 25 square yards was sold for Rs. 20,000/- at an average price of Rs. 800/- per square yard. As per sale deed (Ex. P9) dated 22.8.1986, land measuring 3 marlas was sold for Rs. 40,000/- at an average price of Rs. 444/- per square yard and vide sale deed (Ex. P10) dated 24.9.1991, land measuring 552 square yards was sold for Rs. 96,600/- at an average price of Rs. 172/- per square yard. He further submitted that the land in question was just adjoining the municipal limits which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sub Tehsil. This clearly established that the land was of great potential because Sub Tehsil is constructed only at a strategic boundary which is easily approachable and convenient for the residents of the city. The land in question was merely at a distance of 55 karams from the G.T. Road towards East, while on the western side of the G.T. Road, there was Bluejay Restaurant of Haryana Tourism Corporation and offices of B.D.P.O. and Treasury. Besides this, there was a factory situated quite close to the acquired land. In fact, on the acquired land, certain houses had also been constructed, which clearly established that the land had great potential for being used as residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Keeping these facts in view, sale deeds as were produced by the land owners, should have been relied upon to grant more compensation to the land owners as compared to what has been granted. Learned counsel for the State submitted that compensation, as directed to be paid by the learned court below to the land owners in the present R.F.A. No. 1742 of 1994 [4] case, is highly excessive which in fact, deserves to be reduced considering the fact that the land pertaining to none of the sale deeds, sought to be relied upon by the land owners, is located on any of the site plan produced on record. In the absence thereof, these practically do not carry any evidentiary value. As against this, the State produced sale deeds (Ex. R8 to Ex. R16) showing that value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land was quite less and accordingly, the compensation deserves to be reduced. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as contention of learned counsel for the land owners regarding further enhancement of compensation on the ground that the sale deeds produced by them have not been considered is concerned, it is not in dispute that the land in question is located just at the boundary of the municipal limits, which ends with the road and the land in question is situated on the other side thereof. It is further not in dispute that the land pertaining to none of the sale deeds produced by the land owners has been located on the site plan produced by them. In the absence thereof, it will not be possible for this Court to form an opinion as to whether the value shown in the sale deeds can be compared with the land acquired for the purpose of determination of fair value thereof. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by the learned court below placing no reliance thereupon. As far as determination of fair value of the acquired land is concerned, the learned court below had relied upon sale deed (Ex. R9) produced by the State, as is evident from the discussions in the impugned award. The land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. R9) is situated adjoining the acquired land with only road in between. While taking the value thereof and considering the fact that the land in question is located on the road, a cut of 10% was applied, considering the fact that even the acquisition was also not for a very big chunk of land being less than four acres, I do not find any reason to interfere in the assessment made by the learned court below for the acquired land, as the same is based upon the evidence led by the State itself, where sometimes the State acts fairly as well, by producing relevant evidence. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 17 , 2008 mk