R.F.A. No.450 of 1998 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.450 of 1998 Date of decision : 14.01.2009 Kanhiya .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jayender S.Chandail, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. S. D. ANAND, J. For the construction of a road (Bagpura Kalan to Salora Road in District Faridabad), the competent authority issued notifications dated 22.11.1988 and 2.7.1989 and acquired land measuring 1.66 acres including the land under reference. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for the Chahi and Gher Mumkin land respectively. The appellant took the reference to the District Court and petitioned for enhancement of amount of compensation which was averred by the respondents to be just and fair. The appellant examined PW-1 Raghuvir, PW-2 Yad Ram and PW-3 Kanhiya in support of its case; while respondents only tendered copies of two sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) into evidence. On appraisal of the material obtaining on the file, the learned Additional District Judge held that the average market value of the land (in R.F.A. No.450 of 1998 -2- **** the area) at the relevant point of time was Rs.86,000/-. On that premise, the learned Additional District Judge held that appellant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre, in addition to solatium and other statutory benefits admissible to them under the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act. Kanhiya, who was the land owner of the acquired land, is in appeal against the award of the compensation aforementioned. Mr.Adish Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the learned Trial Court committed a patent error on point of law by ignoring from consideration the contents of sale deed Ex. PW2/A, as per which the average market value of the land at the relevant point of time came to about Rs.86,000/- per acre. In that context, learned counsel also relied upon the fact that it was held by none else or other than the learned Trial Court itself that the average market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.86,000/- per acre at the relevant point of time. Learned State counsel contested the validity of the plea aforementioned and argued that the learned Trial Court ought to have, infact, relied upon the contents of sale Ex. R1, as per which land in the immediate vicinity of the acquired land had been sold at a much lesser rate. It may be indicated at the very outset that Ex. R1 cannot be relied upon by the respondents to further its case in view of the fact that the land sold vide Ex. R1 is proved on record to have been situated at a distance of about 20 killas from the acquired land. In the context of the land sold vide Ex. PW2/A, learned State counsel pointed out that the price which that piece of land fetched cannot have any relate-ability to the case before this Court inasmuch as the land sold thereby was for the purpose of construction of a shop. The argument R.F.A. No.450 of 1998 -3- **** raised thereby is that the sale of piece of land for commercial exploitation would, obviously, fetch a higher price. Insofar as the Ex. PW2/A is concerned, it is apparent from a perusal thereof that the land sold thereby was to be utilised for construction of a shop. In that view of things, there is nothing unnatural if that land fetched a higher market price. The reliance, thus, placed by the appellant upon that sale deed is not just and fair. In the course of the grounds of appeal, the appellant raised a precise averment that the assessment of the market value of the land ought to have been higher in view of the fact that this land is fertile. However, the appellant does not appear to have placed on record any documented and acceptable evidence to prove that this land had any particular higher fertility character. The appellant could surely have adduced evidence which could be supportive of the averred fertile character of the acquired land. However, for the reasons best known to the appellant, he defaulted in not adducing any documented evidence in support of the averment aforementioned. In that view of things, the approach of the learned District Judge in assessing the market value of acquired land cannot be faulted on any valid score. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held to be denuded of merit. It shall stand dismissed. January 14, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No