1 RFA No. 1571 of 1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular First Appeal No. 1571 of 1993 Date of Decision: 12.8.2009 State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector …. Appellant Versus Surinder Kumar and another …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. O.P. Dabla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The State of Punjab has filed the present appeal assailing the award dated 3.6.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Collector for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre has been enhanced to rupees one lac per acre. It has further been ordered that besides the compensation, the claimants would also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and 12 per cent annual increase, under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” in short), and interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the 2 RFA No. 1571 of 1993 first year and 15 per cent per annum for the subsequent period till realization. Adverting to facts, it deserves to be mentioned here that land measuring 2.89 acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Dhabali, Had Bast No. 39, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was sought to be acquired by the State of Punjab for the purpose of construction of Mirzapur Distributory from R.D. 4202 to 8727 meters. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were, thus, issued in that behalf which were published in the Punjab Government Gazette on 11.3.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL, Canal Project, Punjab, Patiala, vide award dated 23.10.1987, awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre, besides ordering annual increase, at the rate of 12 per cent from 14.3.1987 to 22.10.1987 and solatium at the rate of 30 per cent, of the amount of compensation. The claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, pleading that the acquired land had a high potential value as it used to yield three crops in a year; the compensation awarded therefor was, thus, grossly inadequate and the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was not less than rupees two lacs per killa. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation as noticed in the first para of the judgment. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the record. Before the Reference Court, the claimants had produced a copy of the award dated 3.2.1992 to show that at an earlier point of time, said 3 RFA No. 1571 of 1993 Court had awarded compensation in the sum of rupees one lac per acre for Chahi kind of land situated in village Gado Majra which is just nearby the village of which land we are here concerned in the instant case. On other hand, the State of Punjab had pressed into service a sale instance whereby an area of 7 bighas 12 biswas situated in village Dhakansu Khurd had been sold, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 26,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 16421/- per acre. The Reference Court while discarding the sale instance, Exhibit R-1, cited on behalf of the State of Punjab, has noticed valid reasons which read thus: “The reliance of the respondents is upon a solitary sale transaction dated 1.8.1986. Copy of sale-deed Ex. R-1 indicates that an area of 7 bighas 12 biswas in the revenue estate of village Dhakansu Khurd was alienated for a consideration of Rs. 26,000/- which comes to the rate of Rs. 16421/- per acre. The location of the land covered in that sale- deed is anybody‟s guess. No plan has been filed to show the comparative location of the land sold vide that document and the acquired land. Moreover, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre which means that the sale transaction Ex. R-1 was not given any credence by the Land Acquisition Collector. Accordingly that evidence is of no utility.” The Land Acquisition Collector, however, primarily relied upon the sale transaction Exhibit A-1 for determining the market value of the acquired land, in the manner indicated hereunder: 4 RFA No. 1571 of 1993 “Ex. A-1 is copy of an award dated 3.2.92 delivered by this court. In that case the land in the revenue estate of Gadomajra was acquired for the same purpose i.e. for the construction of Mirzapur Distributory from RD 4202 to 8727 meters vide notification of the same date. In that case the market value of „chahi‟ kind of land was fixed at Rs. one lac per acre. In my opinion that award remains the only evidence which can form basis of the decision in the present case. The date of notification in both the cases is the same and the purpose of acquisition is also the same. It is in the statement of Ashwani Kumar Patwari AW-1 that the distributor starts from village Gadomajra and ends in village Dhakansu Khurd. Surender Kumar claimant AW-2 stated that the revenue limits of village Gadomajra and Dhabali are adjacent and distributor emanating from Gadomajra passes through Dhabali. In view of that unrebutted evidence, Award Ex. A-1 determining the market value of the land of village Gadomajra can reasonably be acted upon. There seems to be no reason for treating the claimants in the present case on a different footing from the land owners of village Gadomajra. In the light of the above noticed circumstances, it is held that the market value of the acquired land which was admittedly „chahi‟ at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and the claimants are entitled to compensation accordingly.” 5 RFA No. 1571 of 1993 It would, thus, be seen that for resolving the issue i.e. for determination of the market value of the acquired land, there were only two sale instances before the Reference Court, i.e. Exhibit A-1 and R-1. The Reference court has given conceivable rationale for accepting the former transaction and over-looking the latter. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants could not pin-point any fault in the reasoning given by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment, nor could any illegality or perversity be shown therein by the counsel so as to persuade this Court to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the court below. This Court also, upon consideration of the impugned judgment, finds no error of law therein, calling for any deviation in the market value of the acquired land determined by the Reference Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no orders as to costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) August 12, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*