RFA No.47 of 1993 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.47 of 1993 Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 Bijli Mal and another ..Appellants. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Mr.Karminder Singh and Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates for the appellants. Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Nine Regular First Appeals filed by the claimants bearing Nos.47 of 1993, 2707, 3188, 3189, 3593, 3567 to 3570 of 1992 assailing the award of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 14.5.1992 for further enhancement of compensation are being disposed of by a common judgment as identical question of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from RFA No.47 of 1993. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') published in the official gazette on 26.12.1986, land measuring 12.77 acres (actually acquired 11.56 acres) was acquired for laying out bye pass Dharamkot. Follow up notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 7.8.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as follows : RFA No.47 of 1993 -2 - (i)Banjar Qadim Rs.60,000/- per acre (ii)Banjar Jadid and irrigated land Rs.60,000/- per acre having potentiality for development for residential and commercial purposes. (iii)Irrigated land having no potentiality Rs.33,000/- per acre for development of residential, commercial purposes (iv)Banjar Jadid having no potentiality Rs.33,000/- per acre for development of commercial purposes. (v)Gair Mumkin Rasta/land having sand Rs.18,000/- per acre dunes. The claimants filed Objections and sought references. The claimants examined Jagat Singh as AW1, Gajjan Singh as AW2, Hukam Singh as AW3 and Shiv Charan Singh as AW4. They also tendered into evidence certified copies of sale deeds Ex.AW4/1 to Ex.AW4/3 and closed their evidence. On the other hand, the respondent examined Gurdeep Singh Patwari, office of Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar as RW1 and closed their evidence after tendering nine sale deeds Ex.RB to Ex.RH, Ex.RJ and Ex.RK. The learned Reference Court found that none of the sale deeds could be considered as comparable sale instance for the purpose of reassessment of compensation. However, it was found that land in question has high potential, therefore, the compensation of agricultural land was enhanced from Rs.60,000/- per acre to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre and after applying a cut of 20%, the compensation was finally decided @ Rs.96,000/- per acre. Sh.C.M.Munjal, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that Reference Court has erred in applying cut of 20%. RFA No.47 of 1993 -3 - He submitted that application of cut of 20% is uncalled for. On the contrary, Sh.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent has submitted that the Reference Court has already enhanced the compensation to the extent of double the rate granted by the Collector by including all types of land on the basis of a guess work. Therefore, deduction of 20% is justified on the ground that if the claimants had sold the acquired land in the shape of plots then they must have left some portion for laying out roads, drains, parks etc. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for any interference. The Reference Court has already taken into consideration the interest of claimants by enhancing the compensation at the uniform rate from Rs.60,000/- per acre to Rs.1,20,000/- per acre although the Collector had awarded compensation for different kinds of land from different categories. Thus, in my view, application of 20% deduction on the value of the land which has been arrived at on the basis of guess work having the potentiality for being developed for residential and commercial purpose though it has been acquired for the construction of bye pass, is neither excessive nor inadequate. No other point has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants. Thus, the present appeals are found to be without any merit and are dismissed without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 23.3.2009 Judge Meenu