RFA No.1525 of 1993 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.1525 of 1993 Date of Decision: 20.10.2008 **** Charan Singh and another ….. Appellant(s) Vs. State of Punjab and another …. Respondent(s) **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This common judgment shall dispose of 19 appeals i.e. RFA Nos. 1525, 1526, 1555 to 1558, 2136, 2258 to 2260 and 2262 to 70 of 1993 filed by the State of Punjab as well as the claimants/landowners against the award of the Additional District Judge, Patiala dated 17.11.1992 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land of Village Mohi Kalan, H.B. No.246, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was proposed to be acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), for a public purpose, namely, construction of Gobindgarh distributory from R.D.O 4678 meters, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 11.3.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector, S.Y.L Canal Project, Patiala vide his award No.215/P SYL dated 9.9.1987 determined the market value of the acquired land in two categories, namely, Chahi @ Rs.60000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin @ Rs.35000/- per acre and awarded all the statutory benefits as per the amended Act. Dis-contended with his award announced under Section 11 of the Act, objections under Section 18 of the Act were filed by the landowner alleging therein that the land has a high potentiality as it used to yield three crops in a year and is having a potentiality for constructing RFA No.1525 of 1993 - 2 - buildings for commercial purposes. It was also alleged that with the construction of the canal, the land from both the sides has become useless. The objections under Section 18 of the Act were contested by the respondents/State of Punjab in which it was averred that just compensation of Rs.60,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs.35,000/- per acre for Gair-mumkin land has already been awarded which does not call for any further enhancement. It was maintained that the acquired land has no potentiality as it was being used for agricultural purposes and used to yield two crops in a year. The claim of the landowner that the acquired land has potentiality for raising construction for commercial and residential purposes, was denied. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 17.11.1982 assessed the compensation @ Rs.1 lac per acre for chahi and Rs.40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land while relying upon an earlier award Ex.A2 pertaining to the same notification. Sh.N.S. Pawar, Additional A.G. Punjab has vehemently contended that the compensation assessed vide award Ex.A2 pertains to different village and is also of the different kind of land than the one acquired in the present case. Therefore, the Court below has committed a palpable error in relying upon the award Ex.A2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the claimant/landowners. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance. The argument that has been raised by the counsel for the appellant appears to be attractive but has to be rejected on the ground that there is no evidence on record led by the State of Punjab in respect of the nature of land which can only be determined by leading documentary evidence in the nature of Jamabandi. It has been held by this Court in “Zora Singh vs. Union of India and another” 1988 (1) RRR 43 that in order to find out as to whether the land is chahi, nehri, banjar etc. entries in Jamabandi should be looked into. RFA No.1525 of 1993 - 3 - Since no evidence in the shape of revenue record has been brought on order to distinguish the land of the two villages, the submissions of the counsel for the appellant cannot sustain. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the sale deeds Ex.R1 and R2 tendered by the appellants have been illegally ignored by the reference Court. This argument is also unsustainable because of the reason that Collector has awarded the compensation at a much higher rate than the amount arising out of the sale deeds tendered by the appellants. Therefore, in view of Section 25 of the Act, the sale deeds have been rightly ignored. No other point has been raised. In view of the observations made hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the present appeals; therefore the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 20.10.2008 JUDGE vivek