R.F.A. No. 5261 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 5261 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.1.2011 State of Haryana and others .. Appellants v. Raj Karan and another .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 5261 to 5267 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 5261 of 2010. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.11.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire 11.220 acres of land for construction of Kakoria Distributory from K. M. 0.0 to 5.515 off-taking from K.M. 24.790/L of JLN Canal in village Lisana, Bikaner, Gangaicha, Ghurkawas and Kakoria etc., Tehsil and District Rewari. The same was followed by notification dated 15.1.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide his award dated 14.6.2007, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 16,00,000/- 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 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 20,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the evidence R.F.A. No. 5261 of 2010 [2] produced by the land owners, sale deeds pertaining to small plots have been relied upon. In case, those were to be considered for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, a reasonable cut was required to be applied. After application of cut, the award of the Collector was fully justified. He further submitted that there were 19 sale deeds produced by the State pertaining to the villages, the land of which was acquired. The average sale consideration paid therein was much below even the award of the Collector, which fully justified the award. Even if those are considered for the purpose of taking the average of sale deeds produced by the State as well as the land owners, no interference was required by the learned court below. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. All the sale deeds produced by the State, except one (Ex. R-23), were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Further, the value shown therein is much less even than the value determined by the Collector in his award. Meaning thereby those were even ignored by the Collector and he was of the view that value of the land in the area was more than what is being depicted in the sale deeds, which are registered generally at lower rates, may be for the purpose of avoidance of stamp duty. The learned court below has merely enhanced the compensation from ` 16,00,000/- per acre to ` 20,00,000/- per acre. The value shown in the sale deeds produced by the land owners is quite close thereto. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, there is no illegality in the award of the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case the land owners file appeal, the same will be considered on its own merits and dismissal of appeal filed by the State will not have any bearing on the merits thereof. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 21.1.2011 mk R.F.A. No. 5261 of 2010 [3]