R.F.A. No.3204 of 2006 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No.3204 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.1.2.2010 Maman Singh and others ...... Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3204 to 3210 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The present appeals have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation of their acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 02.09.2000 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") the land measuring 3.51 acres, situated in village Tihar, Hadbast No.103, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired by the State Government for the public purpose namely, construction of Tihar Sub Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 09.04.2001, issued under section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short "the Collector") vide award dated 19.04.2002 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,35,000/- per acre for nahri /chahi land and ` 85,000/- per acre for banjar kadim and gair mumkin land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under section 18 of the Act, the learned court R.F.A. No.3204 of 2006 - 2 - below assessed market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,50,000/- per acre for all types of the acquired land. Still dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below, the land owners have filed appeals before this court. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the potentially and location of the acquired land as the acquired land was situated on the Sonepat-Gohana road, but the learned court below has failed to award adequate compensation for the land in question. He further argued that learned court below has not taken into consideration the order of learned District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector dated 23.11.2004 passed under Stamp Act vide which the learned District Revenue Officer had held that in fact the land has been sold @ of ` 2.5 lacs per acre and in order to avoid the payment of stamp duty less consideration amount had been shown in the sale deed. He further argued that the learned court below has not taken into consideration the sale instance Ex.A-1 while calculating the fair compensation for the acquired land. On the other hand Mr. D.D. Gupta, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that learned court below has already considered entire evidence produced by the land owners and no case for further enhancement is made out. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record carefully. In the present case the evidence led by the land owners is in the form of sale instance Ex.A-1, vide which land measuring 8 kanal situated in village Pinana was sold for a consideration of ` 1,86,000/- on 19.05.1995. Ex.A-3 was also produced in evidence, which is the copy of order dated 23.11.2004 passed by District Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Sonepat in a matter under the provisions of Indian Stamp Act for making good the R.F.A. No.3204 of 2006 - 3 - deficiency of stamps. But the document Ex.A-3, which is an order of the District Revenue Officer is not relevant to assess the fair compensation of the acquired land. The learned court below has assessed the fair value of the acquired land on the basis of award dated 04.10.2005 (Ex.A-6 which was announced in respect of village Pinana and notified for acquisition on the same day i.e. 04.09.2000, on which date, land under the impugned reference was notified for acquisition. From the perusal of the statement of RW1 Shri Chand Kumar Vashishth, S.D.O., Water Services , Sub Division No.1, Gohana, it is evident that the land acquired for Pinana Sub Minor was pertaining to village Pinana as well as village Tihar. He also admitted that the land of village Pinana falls on the western side of Sonepat Gohana highway and the land of village Tihar falls on the eastern side. Meaning thereby that both the villages are adjoining each other. Except above discussed evidence there are no other evidence produced by the land owners. The learned court below has already considered the evidence of the land owners and awarded fair and adequate compensation to the land owners for their acquired land. Therefore, I do not find that any case is made out for further enhancement. Accordingly the appeals are dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 14.12.2010 JUDGE sarita