R.F.A. No. 356 of 1991 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.8.2010 (1) R.F.A. No. 356 of 1991 (O&M) Chhaju Ram and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent (1) R.F.A. No. 357 of 1991 (O&M) Bhagat Ram and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 356 of 1991. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 25.9.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land measuring 5.01 acres, situated in village Khawaja Ahmedpur, District Karnal for construction of Tubewell Channel along Sirsa Branch Link V. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation of ` 12,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri kind of land; ` 10,000/- for Barani kind of land and ` 3,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim R.F.A. No. 356 of 1991 [ 2] and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation @ ` 17,765/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below though had observed in the impugned award that value of the land on the date of acquisition would be much more as compared to the sale deeds relied upon by it, but still did not grant any increase thereon. The sale deed, the genuineness of which was not in doubt and relied upon by the learned court below, i.e., Ex. P3 was registered on 27.1.1978, whereas the acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 25.9.1980, but no increase has been granted to the land owners thereon, which they deserved to be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land owners as well as the State had produced sale deeds Ex. P2/Ex. R1, in terms of which eight months after the acquisition of land, a portion of land was sold in the same village @ ` 20,425/- per acre. If considered the value of the land in the area, as depicted in sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 27.1.1978 being ` 17,765/- per acre registered on 27.1.1978, the land owners at the most can be granted the amount of compensation in between two rates and not what has been depicted in sale deed (Ex. P2/Ex. R1). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. In the present case, a small piece of land measuring 5.01 acres was acquired by the State for construction of tubewell channel along with Sirsa Branch Link V. The price difference between two sale deeds on record, as were registered on 27.1.1978 and 26.5.1981 is from ` 17,765/- to ` 20,425/- per acre. The learned court below had awarded compensation to the land owners @ ` 17,765/- per acre, though observing in the order that the price in the area may be a little bit more. Still considering the fact that on the basis of evidence on record, the land owners cannot possibly be granted compensation beyond ` 20,425/- per acre as is the value shown in sale deeds (Ex. P2/R1) registered on 26.5.1981 and the fact that the land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 25.9.1980 and the Collector announced the award on 21.7.1981, but still the learned court below had granted benefit of the amended provisions of the Act to the land owners, which could only be granted in case the award is announced after 30.4.1982 and the State being not in appeal, in my opinion, a little bit enhancement, which could be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case is very well set off against the additional benefit already granted to the land owners, to which they otherwise R.F.A. No. 356 of 1991 [ 3] were not entitled to. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2010 mk