R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Haryana State and others .. Appellants vs. Lakhmi Chand .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. H. N. Sahu, Advocates for the land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3926 to 3946, 3996 to 3999, 4001 to 4007, 4047, 4048, 4194 to 4198, 4781, 4798, 4883 to 4886, 5117 to 5119, 5820 of 2008, 796, 922 to to 930 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, the prayer is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. In the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction in the compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.8.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 37.5 acres of land in village Phaphrana and 21.86 acres of land in village Rattak, Hadbast No. 76, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal for construction of BML Hansi Branch, Butana Branch Multi purpose Link Channel from RD 268712 to 334212. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 [2] Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi kind of land and ` 7,00,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. 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 @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi kind of land and ` 9,00,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence produced on record by the land owners, which clearly established that the value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition was much more than what was assessed by the learned court below. The sale deeds (Ex. P7 and Ex. P8) have been totally ignored and so the award pertaining to the acquisition of land for Sugar Mill in village Phaphrana. The land had great future potential. The village is located merely 3-4 kilometers from Assandh. It is a fast developing town. Villages Uplana and Salwan are also located close by. Referring to the sale deeds, it was submitted that vide sale deed (Ex. P7) dated 28.3.2007, a big portion of land measuring 93 kanals and 6 marlas was sold for a total sale consideration of ` 1,67,94,000/- at an approximate price of ` 14,00,000/- per acre. The aforesaid land pertained to village Uplana. Vide sale deed (Ex. P8) dated 25.3.2003, one acre of land of village Salwan was sold for a sum of ` 11,50,000/- per acre. For the land acquired vide notification dated 12.12.2006 for the purpose of construction of Sugar Mill, the Collector himself awarded ` 10,00,000/- per acre as compensation. The land pertaining to Sugar Mill was located in the same village. The submission was that once even the Collector realised that value of the land in the area had increased to that extent within a period of one year and four months, that itself shows the future potential of the acquired land. It was further submitted that with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of BML Hansi Branch, the land of the land owners had been divided into two parts, which made it difficult for them to cultivate two portions of the land on either side of the channel. This fact was duly established on record. However, still the learned court below did not award any compensation on account of severance. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that it is practically a case of no evidence on the basis of which the land owners could seek enhancement of compensation. The award of the Collector was just and fair which did not call for any interference even by the Reference Court. The land owners failed to produce on record any sale deed pertaining to village Phaphrana to which the land belonged. The sale deeds, sought to be relied upon, were R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 [3] pertaining to villages Uplana and Salwan. Sale deed (Ex.P7) was registered one year and seven months after the acquisition of land and sale deed (Ex. P8) pertained to village Salwan and was registered more than two years prior to the date of acquisition. Even to show the location of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of Sugar Mill, there is no site plan on record. The so-called aks shijra, produced on record as Ex. P4, does not lead anywhere for the simple reason that the same is in Urdu and there is no translated copy thereof placed on record. It was not even possible for the court to consider the same in evidence. The submission was that the award of the learned court below be set aside and that of the Collector be upheld. As far as claim of the land owners on account of severance is concerned, it was submitted that there is no evidence produced on record by the land owners to specifically show as to in what manner, they have suffered loss on account of acquisition of land and how much land of a particular land owner has been left on each side of the channel. It was required to be established that what damage or loss the land owners had suffered on account of acquisition of land. In the absence thereof, no compensation on account of severance could possibly be awarded. Further, it was submitted that the State has provided bridges and other means to approach other portion of land, as a result of which it cannot be said that two portions of land after acquisition of land have become totally useless and cannot be utilised for agriculture purposes. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the land owners referred to and relied upon two sale deeds (Ex. P7 and Ex. P8) and award of the Collector (Ex. P6) pertaining to acquisition of land for Sugar Mill. As far as the sale deeds are concerned, the same cannot be said to be reliable pieces of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. As far as sale deed (Ex. P7) is concerned, the same was registered on 28.3.2007, i.e., after one year and seven months from the date of acquisition of land. It is pertaining to village Uplana. Even sale deed (Ex. P8) also cannot be said to be relevant for the reason that the land dealt with therein pertained to village Salwan. It was registered two years and five months prior to the date of acquisition. There is no site plan on record to show the location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid two sale deeds. Though at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the land owners sought to refer to aks shijra (Ex. P4), but a perusal thereof shows that the same is in Urdu. Urdu is not the language of the court. The manner in which the site plan was produced and taken on record in evidence shows the casual approach not only of the land owners R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 [4] but even the court. Without the evidence being in court language, the same could not possibly be considered by the court. No translation thereof had been placed on record. Now this court is left only with award (Ex.P6), passed by the Collector, pertaining to acquisition of land for Sugar Mill. It is not disputed that the aforesaid land pertained to village Phaphrana. The acquisition therefor was one year and four months after the acquisition in the present case. The Collector therein had awarded compensation of ` 10,00,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri kind of land. The land acquired vide notification 12.12.2006 was required for the purpose of setting up of Sugar Mill. The Court can assume that location of the land even though pertained to the same village which was required for the purpose of construction of Sugar Mill, would be on some road, whereas the acquired land in the present case was located off the road, as the purpose was construction of channel. Meaning thereby that there would be difference in valuation on account of location, even though the land pertained to the same village. If in the award of the Collector for acquisition of land for Sugar Mill, the amount on account of two negative factors, namely, the time period and the location is reduced and even if the land owners are awarded compensation on account of severance, in my opinion, the amount of compensation, as assessed by the learned court below, does not call for any interference. As far as compensation awarded with regard to village Rattak is concerned, no separate evidence was produced by either of the parties in support of their claim. The land of village Rattak is adjoining the land of village Phaphrana and the learned court below also relied upon the award pertaining to village Phaphrana. Accordingly, the compensation assessed for the land pertaining to this village also does not call for any interference. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeals are dismissed accordingly. Before parting with the judgment, this court is constrained to record that besides taking a document in Urdu on record without its translated copy, the learned court below was casual even in noticing the facts of the case. In para 16 of the certified copy of the award, it has been mentioned that the land for Sugar Mill was acquired seven months after the present acquisition, whereas in the original award, it has been mentioned as one year and seven months and in para 27, the difference in the period has been mentioned as one year and seven months, whereas the same is one year and four months. Similarly, the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector for the Sugar Mill land has been R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 [5] mentioned as ` 13,80,000/- per acre in para 13 and in para 31, the same has been mentioned as ` 10,00,000/- per acre, which is the correct figure. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.8.2010 mk