R.F.A. No. 3217 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3217 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: August 23,2010 Om Dutt .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos.3217 to 3229, 3273 and 4345 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3217 of 2003. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 19.8.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 58.19 acres of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Rawaldhi, H. B. No. 148, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani for construction of storage Reservoir Rawaldhi. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,40,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence placed on record by them. Sale deeds (Ex. P4 to Ex. P7) were not taken care of, which clearly established that value of the land on the date of acquisition was much more than what was assessed by the Collector. Not only this, even from a perusal of the minutes of meeting for determination of fair value of the acquired land, it is evident that it had been noticed that the market rate of the land was ` 2,00,000/- per acre. The average sale R.F.A. No. 3217 of 2003 [2] consideration paid in the sale deeds registered during the last one year was ` 2,04,000/- per acre, however, still the Collector without stating any reason determined the value of the acquired land @ ` 1,40,000/- per acre. The learned court below has totally failed to appreciate the future potential of the land, which was forming part of the controlled area of Dadri. It could very well be used for commercial and industrial purposes. The learned Additional District Judge merely referred to sale deed (Ex. R3) produced by the State while ignoring the evidence led by the land owners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land was in fact water logged from Indira Canal. It was admitted position on record that it was not fit for cultivation on account of seepage of water from Indira Canal from 1970 till its acquisition. Sale deed (Ex. R3) produced by the State was the best piece of evidence, considering the fact that it was registered on 27.6.1997 and the location thereof is just adjoining the acquired land. Vide aforesaid sale deed, 13 kanals and 6 marlas of land was sold at an average price of ` 1,26,316/- per acre. The sale deed produced by the land owners could not possibly be relied upon by the learned court below considering the fact that location thereof was not pointed out on any site plan produced on record by the land owners. He further submitted that in the minutes of meeting held for determination of fair value of the acquired land could not possibly be relied upon as the value shown therein was of the land, which was worth cultivation and not water logged kind of land, as was the quality of land in the present set of appeals Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as evidence led by the land owners is concerned, none of the sale deeds produced by them can be considered relevant for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that location thereof has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record, in the absence of which this court cannot opine that those were the sale transactions for comparable quality of land. As far as sale deed (Ex. R3) is concerned, though the same pertained to the acquisition of land, which is shown to be close to the acquired land, however, the same also cannot be considered for the reason that even the award of the Collector is more than that. It has further come in evidence in the form of statements of PW1- Ved Parkash and PW5- Om Dutt that due to over-flowing of the water from Indira Canal, the land could not be used for crop purposes from 1970 till acquisition. Meaning thereby that quality of the land had been deteriorated on account of seepage from Indira Canal. The cause for R.F.A. No. 3217 of 2003 [3] deterioration of the value of land was acquisition of land in the vicinity for construction of Indira Canal and apparently some faulty design or construction on account of which there was seepage. Another factor, which this court finds to be relevant for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land in the present case is that it is a part of the controlled area of Dadri. Meaning thereby it was within the range of planned development, which to some extent shows its future potential. Another factor, which is relevant, is the minutes of meeting of the Committee constituted for determination of fair value of the acquired land. In the note of meeting, it has been noticed that market value of Nehri/Chahi kind of land in the area is ` 2,00,000/- per acre. The average consideration paid in the area in various sale deeds registered during the last one year is ` 2,04,000/- per acre. Still, without any reason, the value of the acquired land was assessed at ` 1,40,000/- per acre. In the award of the Collector (Ex. P1), the quality of land has been mentioned as Daker Nehri. It is further noticed in the award of the Collector that Commissioner, Hissar Division, had supplied the market rates for Nehri kind of land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre vide letter No. 1007-1009 dated 29.4.1997 and further the Collector mentioned that he is awarding compensation @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. However, at the time of calculation, it was made apparently @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre after including all the statutory benefits therein. In my opinion, once the Commissioner had informed about the rates to the Collector in the area and further it was noticed in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, set up for determination of fair value of the acquired land, that market value of the Nehri/Chahi kind of land is ` 2,00,000/- per acre and even the average consideration paid in the sale deeds registered in the area was ` 2,04,000/- per acre, there was no reason for the State to have awarded compensation to the land owners at a rate less than that. Even if the quality of the land had been deteriorated, as is sought to be projected from the statements of the land owners, the reason therefor was construction of canal in the vicinity. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are allowed and the value of the land is determined @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge August 23, 2010 mk R.F.A. No. 3217 of 2003 [4]