R.F.A. No. 1705 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.F.A. No. 1705 of 1992 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.8.2010 Rakha Singh and another .... Appellants vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. R. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the landowners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1705 of 1992 and 283 and 284 of 1993 arising out of common award. The landowners have filed appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Punjab is seeking reduction of compensation. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 2.4.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Punjab acquired land in the revenue estate of Village Allowal, Tehsil and District Ropar, for construction of S. Y. L. Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide his award dated 19.9.1986 assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 20,053/- per acre for banjar ghar and ` 20,000/- per acre for banjar kadim. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners as well as the State of Punjab are before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below has not assessed just and fair compensation for the acquired land keeping in view the potentiality and location of the land. The submission was that the court below should have relied upon award dated 2.5.1990 (Ex. P-7) and award dated 15.5.1990 (Ex. P-8) vide which the value of the land acquired for the same very purpose in the nearby villages was assessed. It was prayed that the compensation be enhanced as per award, Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. R.F.A. No. 1705 of 1992 -2- On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the court below has totally ignored the evidence led by it while assessing the compensation for the acquired land. The land had no potential value. The land being banjar in nature, the Collector has rightly assessed the compensation. It was prayed that the award of the court below be set aside and that of the Collector be upheld. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The main argument of the learned counsel for the landowners is that the court below should have relied upon awards (Ex. P-7 and P-8). However, there is no evidence in the form of site plan on the record to show the location of the acquired land viz-a-viz the land in Ex. P-7 and P-8. In the absence of any such evidence available on record, no case for interference is made out. Moreover, the court below has has assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the landowners and the State of Punjab. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed. 23.8.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge