R.F.A. No. 833 of 1991 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 833 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision : 5.5.2011 Kulwant Kaur and others .... Appellants vs State of Punjab .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. P. S. Thiara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This is an appeal filed by the landowners impugning the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 6.7.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Punjab sought to acquire land in the revenue estate of village Channo, Tehsil and District Sangrur for setting up of Basic Drugs Unit. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.1.1985. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 16,500/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 17.11.1990, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 24,750/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by the landowners before this court. R.F.A. No. 833 of 1991 (2) Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon two sets of evidence to claim that compensation for the acquired land deserves to be enhanced. First being an award of the Collector, Ex. A-3, pertaining to the land which is adjoining to the acquired land, which was acquired by the State vide notification dated 17.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act. For this land, the Collector had assessed the value thereof @ ` 40,000/- per acre for the land on the main road whereas for the land in the rear, it was assessed @ ` 21,152/- per acre. The second set of evidence is in the form of two sale-deeds, Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-6. Both were registered on 31.5.1982. Incidentally, this very land was acquired subsequently vide Ex. A-3. The average sale consideration paid therein comes to ` 38,000/- per acre. The aforesaid land is abutting the main road and also in rear. Placing reliance thereon learned counsel for the appellants submitted that market value of the acquired land should be assessed @ ` 40,000/- per acre. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that sale- deeds produced by the State fully justified the award of the Collector. Those are also pertaining to the same revenue estate. If at all the sale- deeds produced by the landowners are to be considered, then the sale- deeds produced by the State should also be considered and value shown in both should be averaged. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. The fact that the land pertaining to sale-deeds, Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-6, which were registered on 31.5.1982 and sold at an average price of ` 38,000/- per acre, is located adjoining to the acquired land, is not in dispute. The land dealt with in these sale-deeds is 3-4 acres in depth from the main road. The land in the aforesaid sale-deeds was acquired vide notification dated 17.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act, for which the Collector awarded compensation @ ` 40,000/- per acre for the land abutting the main raod, vide award Ex. A-3. Nothing has been pointed out at the time of hearing as to whether the award, Ex. A-3 was challenged any further by the landowners therein and the amount of compensation awarded therein was enhanced. R.F.A. No. 833 of 1991 (3) Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, in my opinion, the sale-deeds, Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-6 can very well be relied upon for assessment of market value of entire chunk of land considering the fact that the area dealt with in the aforesaid sale-deeds was 3 bighas and 15 bighas, respectively. Accordingly, the compensation for the acquired land is assessed @ ` 38,000/- per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 5.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge