RFA No. 7850 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 7850 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.03.2012 Ram Kumar and others ...Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:. Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of four appeals bearing RFA Nos. 7850 to 7853 of 2011 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 4.4.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), the State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 5.73 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Sunarian Khurd Had Bast No. 102, Tehsil and District Rohtak for construction of ditch drain. The same was followed by notification dated 25.06.2003, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 18.10.2004 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre for Nehri/Chahi; ` 2,50,000/- per acre for Barani/Bhud and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed compensation for the acquired land @ ` RFA No. 7850 of 2011 2 10,00,171/- per acre irrespective of the nature of land. Still dissatisfied, the landowners have filed the present appeals before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the value assessed by the learned court below for the acquired land deserves to be enhanced further considering its location, as the same is in at the outer skirts of Rohtak city. It had great potential as the city was expending on this side. Sale deeds produced by the landowners were not considered in their true perspective. The learned court below should have averaged the sale consideration shown therein and granted the same as compensation. The genuineness of the sale deeds was not in doubt. After hearing learned counsel for the landowners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made above. The landowners had produced two sale deeds before the learned court below, namely, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The details of which are as under:- _____________________________________________________________ Ex. of sale Date of sale Area sold Sale Average sale consideration consideration per in ` acre in ` Ex.P1 7.7.2000 300 sq. yards 60,000/- 9,68,000/- Ex.P2 22.9.2004 133.33 sq. 53,500/- 19,42,078/- yards A perusal of the sale deeds shows that small plots measuring 300 square yard and 133.30 square yard were sold at an average price of ` 9,68,000/- and ` 19,42,078 per acre, respectively. As noticed by the learned court below, no site plan was produced by the landowners to show the location of the land pertaining to Ex.P1. As far as sale deed Ex.P2 is concerned, the same was registered on 22.09.2004 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 4.4.2003. Hence, the same was otherwise not relevant. Further location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deed was also not pointed out on any site plan produced on record. Despite that relying upon some other awards pertaining to the acquisition of land prior in time, RFA No. 7850 of 2011 3 the learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land, which, in my opinion, does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly the present appeals are dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 21.03.2012 sharmila