IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12435 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.07.2011 Dalbir Singh and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Parminder singh, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioners pray that an order dated 19.7.2010 (P2) be quashed, vide which, compensation was assessed for the land (12.5 marla), which was acquired by the canal authorities to construct a water channel. Further challenge has been made to an order dated 29.3.2011(P4), dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners against above order. It is apparent from the records that on an application moved, a water channel was sanctioned in favour of the private respondents by the canal authorities. To dig up that water channel through the land of the petitioners, 12.5 marla of land was put to acquisition. The petitioners raised a demand for grant of compensation as per provisions of the Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974. The competent authority assessed the compensation vide order dated 19.7.2010 @ Rs.Eight lacs per acre. Amount was assessed by taking note of the market rate supplied by the Civil Writ Petition No.12435 of 2011 Collector. The petitioners went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.3.2011. The appellate authority when dismissing their appeal, observed as under:- “I have heard the arguments led by ld. Counsel for both the parties and have also perused the documents brought on the case file and photocopies of sale deed submitted by the parties, which have been registered on lesser or higher price as compared to the said land, hence it is not possible to settle the market price on their basis. On the basis of these facts, I have come to the conclusion that the appellants have been given compensation as per Collector rate at the respective time, when the said land was acquired. Hence the order passed by Ld. Lower Court is based on the facts and justifiable. I, finding no need to interfere in the same, do hereby dismissed the appeal.” To say that compensation awarded is on the lower side, reference has been made to two sale deeds dated 20.11.2009 and 4.6.2009, vide which, some other land was sold for a higher price. We are not inclined to accept that plea raised by the petitioners because there is nothing on record to show that the land, subject matter of the sale deeds was situated in close proximity of the land under acquisition. The value of the land depends upon various factors, if the land is situated next to the village Abadi, it is bound to get much more price than the land which is situated at a distance and it is being used for agricultural purposes. Otherwise also, amount of land acquired is very less, which may not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 18.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12435 of 2011 3