R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision 9.12.2008. 1. R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (O&M) Mohar Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 1621 of 1990 (O&M) Inder Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others ..... Appellants vs The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ..... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 1622 of 1990 (O&M) Joginder Singh ..... Appellant vs The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ..... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 1623 of 1990 (O&M) Gurmail Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ..... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 1624 of 1990 (O&M) Bahadur Singh and others ..... Appellants vs The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project,Patiala and others ..... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 2384 of 1991 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Mohar Singh and others ..... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 2385 of 1991 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Joginder Singh ..... Respondent R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (2) 8. R. F. A No. 2386 of 1991 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Bahadur Singh and others ..... Respondents 9. R. F. A No. 2387 of 1991 and Cross-objection No. 118/CI of 2004 (O&M) Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Canal Project, Patiala and another ..... Appellants vs Harchand Singh and others ..... Respondents 10. R. F. A No. 2388 of 1991 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Inder Singh and others ..... Respondents 11. R. F. A No. 2389 of 1991 (O&M) The State of Punjab and another ..... Appellants vs Gurmail Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1299, 1621 to 1624 of 1990 and Cross Objection No. 118/CI of 2004 filed by the landowners and R. F. A. Nos. 2384 to 2389 of 1991 filed by the State of Punjab, as the same arise out of the common acquisition of land falling in the revenue estates of Village Nahalheri, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala. The landowners have approached this court for further enhancement, whereas the State has filed appeals for reduction in the compensation. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 1299 of 1990. R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (3) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 5/6.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Nahalheri, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, for construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 2.7.1986 assessed the fair value of the land at Rs. 72,990/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 35,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide his award dated 4.12.1989, determination the value of the acquired land at Rs. 1 lac per acre. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the value of land as assessed by the learned court below is not in conformity with the evidence produced by the landowners on record. The awards pertaining to the acquisition for the same purpose in the vicinity were not given due weightage. The acquired land falls within the revenue limits of Nahalheri, Tehsil Sirhind, which is surrounded by Villages Tajpura, Doom Cheri, Kajoli and Ballan. It was further submitted that Morinda town is just at a distance of about two kilometers. A residential colony is constructed in the village. Referring to the statement of RW-1 Sham Lal Patwari it was submitted that the acquired land was at a distance of about 1¼ kilometer from village abadi while it was half a kilometer by way of crow fly and Village Tajpur is about one kilometer whereas Village Nalheri and Village Ballan are at a distance of six kilometers. Morinda town is about 10 kilometers from the acquired land. He further submitted that the compensation determined by the learned court below payable to the landowners on account of severance is also deserves to be increased as merely 30% was granted on that account. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the reliance on the earlier award was totally misplaced as in that case reference was made to a settlement arrived at with the then Chief Minister opining that the value of chahi land be determined at Rs. 1 lac per acre whereas that settlement was perspective in nature. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. None of the counsel has pointed out as to whether any appeal from the same acquisition is pending or decided by this court, accordingly, R. F. A No. 1299 of 1990 (4) the present case is taken up for hearing independently. Learned court below while granting compensation to the landowners in the present case for the acquired land had relied upon a judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 2807 of 1987 The State of Punjab and others vs Khushal Singh and others decided on 31.8.1989 (Ex. A-11) where considering various factors and also the settlement arrived at between the landowners and the Chief Minister, compensation was determined at Rs. 1 lac per acre. It is further brought to the notice of the court that in Lal Chand (died) through LRs. Vs State of Punjab and another 2005 (2) All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 228, this court while considering the judgment in Khushal Singh's case (supra), where the acquisition under consideration was pertaining to the year 1985 granted further increase for the time gap in the notifications for acquisition of land pertaining to the same village. Meaning thereby even subsequently the principle as was followed in Khushal Singh's case (supra) was further referred to and relied upon. Accordingly, as far as the determination of value of the land is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere therewith as there is no material on record even to further increase the same as all the sale-deeds produced by the landowners pertained to Village Tajpura, Kajoli and Ballan. As far as the claim of the landowners regarding increase in the percentage of severance is concerned, considering the material on record where substantial piece of land was left out in the village side, the learned court below has granted as severance 30% of the value of the land which, in my opinion, does not call for any increase. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in the appeals as well as cross-objections, accordingly, the same are dismissed. 9.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge