R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2011 Lakhmi Chand .. Appellant v. Haryana State and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Anil Sharma for Mr. Amit Jhanji, Mrs. Sangeeta Dubey, Mr. R. S. Mamli, Mr. H. N. Sahu, Mr. Suman Jain, Mr. Man Mohan, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Mr. Madan Pal and Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 4000, 4044, 4887 of 2008; R.F.A. Nos. 515, 2109, 2521 to 2526, 4124, 4125, 4135, 4136, 4300, 4301, 5956, 5957 of 2009; R.F.A. Nos. 292, 515 to 518, 958, 1999, 2281, 2417 to 2419, 2475, 2476, 2508, 2524 to 2529, 2694, 2696 to 2719, 2752 to 2754, 2813, 3240, 3242 to 3244, 3298, 3299, 3532 to 3536, 3826 to 3830, 3915, 3976 to 3979, 4112, 4161, 4469 to 4472, 4517, 4518, 4899, 4951, 5043, 5441 to 5445 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved. R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 [2] In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.8.2005, published on 11.8.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire land of villages, namely, Phaphrana, Rattak, Panghala, Jabhala, Salwan, Jainsinghpura and Uplana, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal for construction of BML Hansi Branch, Butana Branch Multi Purpose Link Channel from RD 268712 to 334212. The same was followed by notification dated 12.9.2005, published on 14.9.2005, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation for the acquired land at different rates. 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. The amount awarded by the Collector and the learned court below for different villages is extracted below: Village Kind of land Amount awarded by the Amount awarded by the Collector per acre in ` court below per acre in ` .............................................................................................................. Rattak Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 8,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Phaphrana Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 8,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Panghala Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 8,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Jabhala Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 10,00,000/- Salwan Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 8,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Jainsinghpura Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 8,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 9,00,000/- R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 [3] Uplana Nehri/Chahi 6,00,000/- 8,00,000/- Gair Mumkin 7,00,000/- 9,00,000/- Acquisition pertaining to villages Rattak and Phaphrana Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the issue raised in the set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 3926 of 2008 -- Haryana State and others v. Lakhmi Chand, decided on 10.8.2010, whereby the award of the learned court below regarding determination of fair value of the acquired land was upheld. For the reasons stated in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), there is no merit in the appeals filed by the land owners for enhancement of compensation pertaining to the acquired land of villages Rattak and Phaphrana. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. Acquisition pertaining to village Panghala A perusal of the impugned award shows that while assessing fair value of the acquired land in the present set of appeals, learned court below relied upon an earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land of neighbouring village Phaphrana. The award pertaining to acquisition of land in village Phaphrana was subject matter of appeal in this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), whereby the same was upheld. No other evidence was referred to by learned counsel for the land owners justifying enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. In view of the judgment of this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), no enhancement can possibly be made for the land pertaining to village Panghala. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are dismissed. Acquisition pertaining to village Jabhala A perusal of the impugned award shows that while assessing fair value of the acquired land in the present set of appeals, learned court below relied upon an earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land of neighbouring village Phaphrana. The award pertaining to acquisition of land in village Phaphrana was subject matter of appeal in this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), whereby the same was upheld. R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 [4] Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the location of the land in question is better than the land of village Phaphrana. However, nothing could be pointed out from the record to substantiate the said fact. No other evidence was referred to by learned counsel for the land owners for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. In view of the judgment of this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), no enhancement can possibly be made for the land pertaining to village Jabhala. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are dismissed. Acquisition pertaining to village Uplana A perusal of the impugned award shows that while assessing fair value of the acquired land in the present set of appeals, learned court below relied upon an earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land of neighbouring village Phaphrana. The award pertaining to acquisition of land in village Phaphrana was subject matter of appeal in this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. Coming to the evidence led by the land owners for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, sale deed (Ex. P2) was produced. However, the location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deed was not pointed on any site plan produced on record by them. In the absence thereof, the contention of learned counsel for the land owners that the same has not been considered at all is totally untenable. It is always the location and the comparability of the land forming part of the sale deeds, relied upon by the land owners, vis-a-vis, the acquired land which is to be seen for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land and in the absence of sufficient material on record to show the location of the acquired land and also the land forming part of the sale deeds, it would be totally inappropriate to place reliance thereon. No other evidence having been relied upon, in view of the judgment of this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), no enhancement R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 [5] can possibly be made for the land pertaining to village Uplana. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are dismissed. Acquisition pertaining to village Salwan A perusal of the impugned award shows that while assessing the fair value of the acquired land in the present set of appeals, learned court below relied upon an earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land of neighbouring village Phaphrana. The award pertaining to acquisition of land in village Phaphrana was subject matter of appeal in this court in Lakhmi Chand's case (supra), whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld. At the out-set, it is pointed out that the appeals filed by the State of Haryana for reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land pertaining to villages Salwan and Uplana have been dismissed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 1686 of 2010—State of Haryana through Collector, Karnal and others v. Ram Pal and others, decided on 23.12.2010. In evidence, the land owners produced sale deed (Ex.P3), registered on 25.3.2003, vide which 8 kanals, i.e., one acre of land was sold for ` 11,50,000/-. It was registered more than two years and four months prior to the acquisition. The genuineness thereof is not in doubt. In the application for additional evidence filed in this court, the land owners produced aks shijra showing the location of land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P3). Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the land forming part of the sale deed is adjoining to the acquired land. It is located on Karnal Assandh road. For the time gap, in my opinion, ` 2,50,000/- deserve to be added in the sale consideration shown in the aforesaid sale deed. The aforesaid land was abutting the road, hence, the land owners, whose land is located upto the depth of one acre from the main road, deserve to be awarded compensation @ ` 14,00,000/- per acre. Ordered accordingly. The land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available to them under the Act.` As far as the land located beyond that is concerned, the award of the learned court below is upheld. R.F.A. No. 4000 of 2008 [6] Acquisition pertaining to village Jainsinghpura As no argument was advanced by either of the parties with regard to acquisition of land pertaining to village Jainsinghpura, the award of the learned court below is upheld. As far as claim for damages on account of severance is concerned, as in the bunch of appeals pertaining to villages Rattak and Phaphrana already decided by this court, no amount on that account was directed to be paid, this court would not like to deal with the cases in the present set of appeals differently as the land in all the cases has been acquired for construction of BML Hansi Branch, Butana Branch Multi Purpose Link Channel from RD 268712 to 334212. The appeals stand disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.5.2011 mk