R.F.A. No. 1760 of 1986 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1760 of 1986 Date of decision: 22.10.2008 Kailash Chand Mangla (Deceased) through his L.Rs. .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned Court below seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in Palwal was acquired vide notification dated 6.1.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for Housing Board, Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 17,000/- per acre. Feeling dissatisfied, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, who keeping in view the material placed on reocrd by the parties, determined the fair value of the acquired land @ Rs. 42,080/- per acre. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only sale deed (Ex. P2) was required to be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land in the present case and on the basis thereof, the compensation payable to the land owners deserves to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the compensation, as assessed by the learned Court below, in the present case, is just and fair which does not call for any further increase. Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out as to whether any other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is either pending or decided by this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the R.F.A. No. 1760 of 1986 [2] award shows that the learned Court below has applied just and fair method for determination of the value of the acquired land as the average of sale deeds (Ex. P2, Ex. P4, Ex. P8, Ex. P9 and Ex. R3) has been taken. A perusal of the sale deeds shows that the same were for a small piece of land, but still no cut was applied. Mutation ( Ex. R2) could not be considered for the purpose of determination of the fair value of the land. However, the value shown therein is for a transaction which was entered into on 9.4.1985, i.e., after more than two years of the acquisition in the present case for the land which is situated quite close to the G.T. Road. It clearly shows that the value, as assessed by the learned Court below and as was shown in the aforesaid sale deeds, the average of which was taken for the purpose of determination of the fair value of the land, is quite reasonable. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.10.2008 mk