RFA No.1917 of 1990 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 1917 of 1990 Decided on October 15,2008. State of Haryana through its Collector, Rohtak, and another --- Appellants vs. Mange Ram and another ---Respondents Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana,with Mr.Rajive Kawatra,Sr.D.A.G.Haryana,for the appellants None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of R.F.A Nos. 1917,1918,1919 and 1920 of 1990, filed by the State of Haryana, as common questions of law and fact are involved in all the appeals. Vide notification dated 17.10.1985, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act') followed by notification of declaration dated 11.3.1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 40 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Baghpur, tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak was acquired at the public expense for a public purpose, namely, construction of Wazirpur link drain from kilometer 0 to 2.520. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No.43 dated 11.3.1988 assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.30,000/- for Nehri/Chahi, Rs. 20,000/- for Barani and Rs.10,000/- for Banjar Kadim . RFA No.1917 of 1990 2 Objections under Section 18 of the Act were filed by the claimants/land owners before the Collector which were referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. The claimants filed their claim petitions and demanded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The claim was stoutly opposed by the State of Haryana. It was alleged that the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and adequate. Both claimants and the State of Haryana led oral as well as documentary evidence. The claimants examined PW-1 Abhey Kumar, PW-2 Ram Karam, PW-3 Ashok Kumar one of the claimants and PW-4 Chhotu Ram. They tendered sale deeds Ex.P-1, P-2 and Ex.P-5 besides copy of judgment Ex.P-3 and khasra girdawri Ex.P-4. On the other hand, the respondents- State of Haryana produced on record copies of sale deeds Ex. R-1 to R-3, which are tabulated as under:- Ex. Village Date of sale Area sold Sale price Price per acre. R1 Bhagpur 09/10/85 2kanals10 marlas Rs.45,00/- Rs.14,400/- R-2 do- 24.6.1988 2kanals 19 marlas Rs.20,000/- Rs.53,333/- R-3 do- 26.2.1986 One kanal Rs.2500/- Rs.20,000/- The learned Reference Court, after relying upon the sale deed Ex.P-5 assessed the compensation @ Rs.53760/- per acre and awarded solatium and interest as per amended Act. Mr.H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General,Haryana, assisted by Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, learned Senior D.A.G.Haryana, has vehemently contended that the Court below has made a palpable error in relying upon sole sale instance i.e. Ex.P-5 that too pertaining to a small piece of land of 2 RFA No.1917 of 1990 3 kanals and has also committed a grave error of law in discarding the sale deeds produced by the State i.e. Ex. R-1 to Ex- R-5. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in granting uniform rates for all the three categories of land. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.claimants. I have heard learned counsels for the appellants/State of Haryana and have perused the record with their assistance. Insofar as the sale deeds Exs. R-1 to R-3 produced by the appellants-State of Haryana are concerned, they deserve to be ignored because value per acre coming out of the aforesaid sale deeds Exs. R-1 to R-3 is less than the award of the Collector and as per Section 25 of the Act, the Civil Court cannot give the compensation less than the award of the Collector. The other contentions is that reliance has been placed on sale instance Ex. P-5 which is a small piece of land. In this regard, the decision of this Court in the case of Gulzar Singh vs. State of Haryana 2006 (3) R.C.R.(Civil) 174, is being referred wherein it has been held that when a small piece of land itself was acquired by the State, the sale instance of another small piece of land cannot be ignored nor it can be held that small piece of land did not reflect market price for acquired land. In the cited case of Gulzar Singh (Supra), the acquired land was 24 kanals 13 marlas,whereas in the present case, acquired land is only 40 kanals 17 marlas. It is now well settled that even small piece of land could be made an exemplar for the purpose of assessment of compensation especially where the acquired land too is not a big chunk of land. Thus, I do not find any RFA No.1917 of 1990 4 merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants . Regarding the third contention qua uniform rates of the acquired land. No distinction can be drawn as the purpose of acquisition is for construction of Wazirpur link drain. Moreover, acquired 40 kanals 17 marlas is a very small piece of land. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in these appeal and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. October 15,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge