RFA No. 948 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.7.2010 1) RFA No. 948 of 2001 (O&M) Charanjit Singh ....Appellant Versus Punjab State and others ...Respondents 2) RFA No. 2589 of 2001 (O&M) The State of Punjab and others ....Appellants Versus Charanjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the landowner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J The aforesaid order shall dispose of two appeals one filed by the land owner and another by the State of Punjab impugning the same award of the learned Court below. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 2589 of 2001. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.12.1993 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, 'the Act') and vide notification dated 11.2.1994 under Section 6 of the Act, State of Punjab acquired land measuring 17 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Madhopur Cantt. Tehsil Pathankot along with residential house, fruit and non-fruit bearing trees. The Land Acquisition Collector ( for short, 'the Collector') announced its award on 7.8.1996 assessing compensation in respect of the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act awarded compensation @ ` 1000/- per marla. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the claim made by the land owners as far as the valuation of land is concerned is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 4525 of 2001 titled as Thuru RFA No. 948 of 2001 2 Ram Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 16.3.2009, where the compensation payable for the acquired land was further enhanced. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Court below to the land owner on account of super-structure existing on the acquired land is not just and fair. The valuation report produced by him on record was ` 9,21,300/-. The Collector had merely awarded ` 4,41,888/-. The learned Court below merely awarded additional amount of ` 3 lacs on that account. In fact, the residential house of the appellant had been acquired. The appellant is entitled to balance amount of compensation on that account. As far as trees standing on the acquired land is concerned it was submitted that the compensation paid by the Collector on that account is not just and fair. There are eight fruit bearing trees and 58 non-fruit bearing trees for which merely ` 7,40,000/- were awarded as compensation. He further submitted that the house of the applicant had been acquired. He had to shift his place of residence and on that account he was entitled to be compensated for transportation. There is special mention regarding rehabilitation for the ousted in the award of the Collector but nothing has been paid on that account. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted while not disputing the fact that the claim made by the land owners on account of acquisition of land is covered by the judgment of this Court in Thuru Ram's case (supra), submitted that the compensation as has been assessed by the learned Court below on account of super-structure existing on the acquired land is not in terms of the evidence produced on record by the land owners. The Collector had assessed the valuation of the super-structure as per the approved formula. There was no reason for grant of any enhancement to the land owners on that account. He further submitted that as far as the claim for enhancement made on account of fruit and non-fruit bearing trees, is concerned there is no evidence led by the land owners on that account. In the absence thereof no enhancement can be granted. Similar is the position with regard to the award of transportation charges. The award only mentions that the ousted shall be entitled to certain benefits as per the policy to be framed by the Government. It has nothing to do RFA No. 948 of 2001 3 with the award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the claim made by the land owner on acquisition of land is concerned, the issue has already been examined by this Court in Thuru Ram's case (supra). Accordingly, the land owner is awarded @ ` 1754/- per marla amount of compensation. In addition to that the land owner shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits thereon. As far as the claim made by the land owners on account of valuation of super-structure on the acquired land is concerned, in my opinion, the amount of compensation as has been assessed by the learned Court below does not call for any interference. The residential house of the land owner was acquired. The amount of compensation as has been assessed by the Collector and further enhanced by the learned Court below is more than enough considering even the evidence produced by the land owner on that account. Accordingly, the same does not call for any interference. Even the claim for enhancement of compensation on account of trees existing on the acquired land and also for transportation charges is concerned, the same also deserves to be rejected. Admittedly there is no evidence on record to justify any increase on account of valuation of trees is concerned and as far as the award of transportation charges the reliance was sought to be placed upon the observations made by the Collector in the award which refers to same benefit to be granted by the State to the ousted as per the policy of the Government. It certainly does not have anything to do with the assessment or grant of compensation under the Act. Accordingly, the claim to that extent is rejected. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the land owner is partly accepted whereas that of State is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 26.7.2010 JUDGE Reema