RFA No.418 of 1991 with -1 - X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.418 of 1991 with X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 Date of Decision: 28.4.2009 Punjab State through Collector Mukerian Hydel Channel Project, Talwara, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. ..Appellant. Vs. Udho ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG Punjab for the appellant. Mr.I.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the Cross-Objector/respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of 7 Regular First Appeals bearing No.418 of 1991 with X Objection 81-CI of 1991, RFA No.419 of 1991 with X Objection 1-CI of 1992, RFA No.420 of 1991 with X Objection No.82-CI of 1991, RFA No.421 of 1991 with X Objection No.12-CI of 1992, RFA No.422 of 1991 with X Objection No.14-CI of 1992, RFA No.423 of 1991 with X Objection No.83-CI of 1991, RFA No.424 of 1991 with X Objection No.2-CI of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab and claimants respectively against the award of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur dated 31.8.1990. As identical question of law and facts are involved in the appeals and Cross Objections, therefore, these are being disposed of together by a common judgment. The facts, however, are taken from RFA No.418 of 1991 titled as RFA No.418 of 1991 with -2 - X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 Punjab State through Collector, Mukerian Hydel Channel Project, Talwara, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur Vs. Udho. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') dated 15.1.1985 published in the Government Gazette on 25.1.1985, land of villages Uchhi Bassi and Sadarpur was acquired for the construction of Mukerian Hydel Channel Project. The land in the present case relates to the area of village Sadarpur. The Land Acquisition Collector, Dasuya (for short `the Collector') vide his award dated 5.11.1985 assessed the market value of the acquired land as follows : Sr.No. Nature of Land Value per acre 1. Chahi Rs.28,000/- per acre 2. Barani Rs.14,000/- per acre 3. Sailab Rs.10,000/- per acre 4. Gair Mumkin Rs. 6,000/- per acre The land owners filed Objections against the award of the Collector in which they claimed that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.1 lac per acre. They also claimed compensation for levelling of the acquired land and for bifurcation of the land due to construction of Hydel Channel Project. The State in its reply, submitted that adequate compensation has already been awarded. Both the parties led their oral well as documentary evidence. The claimants examined Gurdial Singh as AW1, Bakshish Singh as AW2, Sarbjit Singh as AW3, Amin Singh as AW4, Karnail Singh as AW5, Bhagat Singh as AW6, Surinder Kumar, Assistant Draftsman as AW7. The respondent examined Gurcharan Singh, Ziledar as RW1. Besides the oral evidence, the claimants RFA No.418 of 1991 with -3 - X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 tendered the following sale deeds: Exhibit Date of sale deed Area Value Village A2 21.1.1985 1 K-5M 10,000/- Uchhi Bassi A3 28.11.1984 2 K-8M 21,000/- -do- A4 7.1.1985 1 Kanal 7,000/- -do- A5 7.1.1985 1 Kanal 7,000/- -do- A6 24.1.1985 2K-4M 19,500/- -do- A10 27.12.1984 1K-9M 13,000/- Sadarpur The Respondent-State of Punjab tendered the following sale deeds: Exhibit Date of sale deed Area Value Village Ex.R2 14.8.1984 66K-13M 22,000/- Uchhi Bassi and Sadarpur Ex.R3 10.12.1984 3K-18M 6,000/- Sadarpur Ex.R4 28.5.1985 4K-13 M 6,000/- -do- Ex.R5 2.8.1985 3K-5M 4,000/- Lamin Ex.R6 21.3.1985 3 Kanals 7500/- Uchhi Bassi Ex.R7 21.6.1985 28 Kanals 35,000/- Lamin The learned Reference Court found all the sale deeds tendered by the State of Punjab incomparable to the land in question because those are situated far away from the acquired land and was of Chamb land and not of Chahi land. The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale transaction Ex.A10 which pertains to Khasra No.21/1 and 21/2 comprising Rectangle No.13 of village Sadarpur. It has been shown in site plan Ex.A15 that the land sold vide sale deed Ex.A10 falls in Mukerian Hydel Channel Project itself. Thus, the learned Reference Court found the sale instance Ex.A10 to RFA No.418 of 1991 with -4 - X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 be the most relevant piece of evidence whereby land was sold for Rs.13,000/- which comes to 71,724/- per acre. Since the area sold vide sale deed Ex.A10 was very small, therefore, while applying a cut and keeping in view the sale instances Ex.A3 to Ex.A6, the value of which comes to Rs.64,000/- per acre, the Reference Court awarded Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi land and accordingly, enhanced the compensation in respect of other kinds of land and awarded the compensation as under : 1) Chahi Rs.60,000/- per acre 2) Barani Rs.30,000/- per acre 3) Sailab Rs.18,000/- per acre 4) Gair Mumkin Rs.10,000/- per acre Besides, 5% extra compensation was awarded in respect of the land which remained unacquired due to bifurcation and in terms of the Amended Act, other statutory benefits were also awarded. Sh.J.S.Sandhu, AAG Punjab appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has committed an error while discarding the sale deeds tendered by the State on the ground that those are situated far away and do not pertain to Chahi land. In response to this argument, learned counsel for the claimant/Cross Objector has submitted that the average price per acre of the sale deed Ex.R2 is Rs.2640/-, Ex.R3 is Rs.12,307/-, Ex.R4 is Rs.12000/-, Ex.R5 is Rs.8000/- and Ex.R6 is Rs.12,000/- per acre etc. Thus, it is submitted that value per acre derived from all the sale deeds tendered by the State of Punjab- appellant is less than the award of the Collector insofar as Chahi land is concerned, therefore, those could not have been taken into consideration. RFA No.418 of 1991 with -5 - X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 Moreover, it is submitted that the said sale instances are situated far away from the acquired land and are of poor quality of land. In respect of the Cross Objections, it is submitted that the value arising out of the sale instance Ex.A10 pertaining to the land of village Sadarpur, comes to Rs.71,724/- but the Reference Court has committed an error while awarding Rs.60,000/- per acre for Chahi land. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Cross-Objector that the learned Court below should have awarded Rs.71,724/- per acre, instead of awarding Rs.60,000/- per acre, without applying any cut. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance and in my considered view, the appeals as well as Cross-Objections deserve to be dismissed. Insofar as the contention raised by learned counsel for the State that sale deeds tendered by the State have been wrongly rejected by the Court below is concerned, it has come in evidence that average price per acre derived out of their sale deeds is less than the award of the Collector in respect of Chahi land, therefore, in view of Section 25 of the Act, the same could not have been taken into consideration. Moreover, the sale deeds relate to the land which is situated far away from the acquired land and are of the quality which is not equal to the land which has been acquired. Therefore, I do not find any error in the reasoning adopted by the learned Reference Court in this regard. Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the Cross Objector/claimants for the purpose of enhancement of compensation is concerned, the learned Reference Court has already taken into consideration RFA No.418 of 1991 with -6 - X Objection No.81-CI of 1991 the best sale instance Ex.A10 which is not only prior to the date of notification but also pertains to the land which is under acquisition. The contention of the learned counsel for the Cross Objector that learned Reference Court should have awarded compensation @ Rs.71724/- per acre without applying any cut cannot be accepted because the acquired land is only 1 Kanal 9 Marlas, which is small piece of land in comparison to the acquired land. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly applied a cut and awarded Rs.60,000/- per acre keeping in view the sale instances Ex.A3 to Ex.A6, the average of which comes to Rs.64,000/- per acre. No other point has been raised in these appeals as well as the Cross Objections before this Court. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the approach of the learned Reference Court while determining the compensation in respect of the acquired land. Thus, the appeals filed by the State of Punjab as well as the Cross-Objections filed by the claimants are dismissed, without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 28.4.2009 Judge Meenu