R.F.A. No.831 of 1997 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.831 of 1997 Date of decision : 13.01.2009 Mewa Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: None for the appellant. Mr. H.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. The land under reference 9 kanals 12 Marlas, situated within revenue estate of village Bhago Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Rupnagar was acquired for construction of Lower Branch Canal. The notification (No. 1674/SYL/Const.) under Section 4 and also further notification (No. 2646/SYL/Const.) under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in the relevant behalf were published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 29.3.1988 and 3/4.5.1988 respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.55,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.30,000/- per acre for Chahi, Barani and Gair Mumkin land respectively. The land owner/appellant before this Court filed an application under Section 18 of the Act on a plea that the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector represented compensation which was inadequate and insufficient. The plea, in the context, was that the assessment of R.F.A. No.831 of 1997 -2- **** compensation ought to have been quantified on the higher side in view of the great potential value of the acquired land which abutted the National Highway from Kharar to Ambala. Further averment was that number of residential houses and the Anaj Mandi are located near that land. The appellant/claimant averred that market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.2.5 lacs per acre. The respondent reiterated the adequacy of the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The trial proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector is inadequate? If so, to what extent ? OPP 2. If issue NO. 1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? If so, to what effect? OPP 3. Relief” The appellant/claimant, in support of his plea for higher assessment of market value, relied upon the judgment Ex. P2, vide which the Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar, had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs.75,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs.55,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The respondent had otherwise placed reliance upon Ex. R/1, vide which 8 kanals land had been sold for Rs.30,000/-. The learned Reference Court noticed the fact that the land under reference had been acquired in pursuance of an agreement between the Chief Minister, Punjab and the SYL action Committee and that agreement had been affirmed by this Court in a judgment reported as The State of Punjab Vs. Surjan Singh etc. 1990 (1) P.L.R. 278. In that case R.F.A. No.831 of 1997 -3- **** too, the land had been acquired for the construction of SYL canal. It was in the light thereof that the learned referring Court awarded the above indicated amount of compensation for different types of land. In the absence of any assistance on behalf of the appellant, this Court went through the grounds of appeal in order to find out the exact grievance of the appellant. There is an averment in the grounds of appeal that the acquired land has “a great potential value at the time of its acquisition. National Highway from Kharar to Ambala is located near the acquired land. Number of residential houses and Anaj Mandi was also located near the acquired land.” There is complete want of evidence on behalf of the appellant to prove 'the great potential value' of the land under reference “at the time of its acquisition”. It was for the appellant to adduce evidence to prove the facts which would, in common parlance, be add to the 'the great potential value' of an acquired land. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, this Court has no reason to differ with the assessment of the market value of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Collector. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate the relate-ability of Annexure P-2 to the land under reference. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the appeal is held to be denuded of merit. It shall stand dismissed. January 13, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No