RFA No.1854 of 1991 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No.1854 of 1991& X Obj Nos.13-CI & 15-CI of 1992 Decided on December 08,2008. State of Haryana -- Appellant vs. Har Lal and others --Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mrs.Mamta Singhal Talwar,A.A.G.Haryana,for the appellant. Mr.Alok Jain,Advocate,for the Cross Objectors/landowners. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of two Regular First Appeals bearing R.F.A. Nos. 1854 and 1855 of 1991 filed by the State of Haryana & X Objection Nos.13-CI and 15-CI of 1992 filed by the landowners/claimants as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being taken from RFA No.1854 of 1991 (State of Haryana v. Har Lal and others). Vide notification dated 25.2.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short,'the Act'), 158 kanals 7 marla of land situated in the revenue estate of village Nangal Chaudhary was proposed to be acquired for the development and construction of Grain Market at Nangal Chaudhary. This was followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No.12 RFA No.1854 of 1991 2 announced on 09.7.1986 determined the compensation payable to the landowners @ Rs.28,880/- per acre. The land owners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed higher compensation on the ground that the acquired land had potential value for being developed as residential and commercial area. The claim petitions were contested by the State alleging that adequate compensation has already been paid to the landowners after taking into consideration location and potential of the acquired land. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. The landowners/claimants placed on record sale instances Exs. P-2 to P-5 which are tabulated as under:- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - Document Date of sale Area sold Total Price per acre price - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ex.P2 18.5.1979 1K-0M 10,000/- 80,000/- Ex.P3 9.4.1976 0K-15M 12,000/- 1,28,000/- Ex.P4 7.7.1978 1K- 0M 10,000/- 80,000/- Ex.P-5 7.7.1978 1K- 0M 10,000/- 80,000/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - The State of Haryana tendered sale deeds Exs. R-2 to R-4 which are also tabulated below:- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - Document Date of sale Area sold Total Price per acre price - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Ex.R2 27.6.1979 10K-18M 20,000/- 14,678-90/- Ex.R3 23.6.1979 0K- 7M 1,000/- 22,857-14/- Ex.R-4 7.12.1979 2K- 7M 2,000/- 6,808-51/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration an earlier award Ex.P-1 and award of the Collector of Rs.28,880/- per RFA No.1854 of 1991 3 acre, re-assessed the compensation @ Rs.80,000/-per acre. Ms.Mamta Singhal Talwar, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that sale deeds Exs. R-2 to R-4 have been erroneously ignored by the Court below. Mr.Alok Jain, learned counsel appearing for the landowners, while opposing the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and pursuing the cross objections filed by the landowners/claimants has contended that the sale deeds Exs. R-2 to R-4 have been rightly ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that the same are below the price offered by the Collector. He also submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in not relying upon the sale deed Ex.P-3 whereby an area of 0k-15 marla was sold for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- which comes to Rs.1,28,000/- per acre. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Insofar as the argument of the learned State Counsel is concerned, the sale deeds Exs. R2 to R4 have been rightly ignored by the Court below because the price arising out of them is less than the award of the Collector and cannot be considered in terms of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the cross objectors/landowners that the sale deed Ex.P3 should have been taken into consideration is also ill founded because vide this sale deed only a small piece of land measuring 15 marlas has been sold for a sum of Rs.12,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,28,000/- per acre. Since large chunk of an area measuring 158 kanals 7 marlas has been acquired and if instance of small RFA No.1854 of 1991 4 piece of land measuring 15 marlas ( Ex.P 3) is to be followed, then 33% normal cut of deduction has to be given as contended by the State Counsel which would bring the same price that has been awarded by the learned Reference Court. So looking from any angle, the compensation which has been awarded by the learned Reference Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in these appeals either filed by the State of Haryana or the cross objections filed by the landowners/claimants, and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. December 08,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge