R.F.A. No. 5627 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 5627 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2010 State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Har Lal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 5627 to 5635, 5637 of 2001, 132 and 1219 of 2002, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 5627 of 2001. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 3.22 acres, situated in village Harsaru, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') on 16.4.1990, for construction of a road from Gurgaon-Pataudi to Garhi Harsaru Railway Station. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi, Bag Chahi, and Gair Mumkin abadi kind of land and ` 70,080/- per acre for Magda and Bhood kind of land. Aggrieved against the award, the landowners filed objections, which were referred to the learned Reference Court, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 100/- per square yard. R.F.A. No. 5627 of 2001 [2] Learned counsel for the State submitted that the amount of compensation, as has been assessed by the learned court below is not justifiable considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners. The sale deeds produced on record were rightly discarded considering the fact that those were for very small plots of land. Even the award (Ex. P2) also cannot be relied upon for the reason that the land pertaining thereto was not comparable with the acquired land. However, he was candid in saying that the evidence led by the State as such is not relevant as all the sale-deeds were of the value less than the award of the Collector. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners while defending the appeal filed by the State and also seeking further enhancement submitted that the acquired land was strategically located close to Garhi Harsaru Railway Station. The area close to the acquired land was already developed and was being used for residential purposes. It was situated at a distance of 8 kilometers from District Centre of Gurgaon. Sultanpur Lake and Birds Sanctuary were merely at a distance of 4 kilometers. It had great future potential for residential and commercial purposes. The land owners produced on record various sale deeds, however, the same have been wrongly ignored by the learned court below opining that those were pertaining to small pieces of plots, whereas the acquired land was also not a big chunk, being merely 3.22 acres. He further submitted that the land owners had produced on record earlier award (Ex. P2) pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 1.3.1990 for construction of link road between village Badha-Hayatpur, Nawada-Fatehour and the land in question in the present case is located quite close thereto. This fact was even admitted by the witness produced by the State in his cross-examination. Photographs showing the development in the vicinity (Ex. P9 to Ex. P15) had not been disputed by the State at the time of arguments before the learned court below, as is noticed in the impugned award, where the acquired land was shown to be abutting the abadi deh of the village. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the land owners as well as the State. The learned court below while assessing the compensation for the acquired land had relied upon its earlier award (Ex. P2) pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 1.3.1990 for construction of link road between village Badha-Hayatpur, Nawada-Fatehour. It was admitted R.F.A. No. 5627 of 2001 [3] by R.W.1- S. K. Aggarwal in his cross-examination that connecting point of Naswada-Fatehour road and the road constructed on the acquired land is at a distance of about 50 meters. It was further admitted by him that the shops had come up at the junction of the road. Some of the houses were even existing on the acquired land, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of road, which in fact is located quite close to the abadi of the village. Considering the aforesaid facts, the learned court below relied upon the aforesaid award pertaining to acquisition of nearby land vide notification, which was issued 1-1/2 months prior thereto. The sale deeds produced by the State were rightly ignored being lower in value than the award of the Collector. None of the other sale deeds produced by the land owners could possibly be relied upon for the reason that there is no site plan on record to show the exact location thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land. Considering the aforesaid facts, no fault can be found with the award of the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. While admitting the appeal on 21.12.2001, this court had passed the following order: “The execution of the impugned award shall remain stayed subject to appellant's depositing 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation within two months from today with the Executing Court, which shall be payable to the claimant-respondent without furnishing any security. The balance amount of 50% shall be deposited within one month thereafter with the State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, through the Registrar of this Court. The bank is directed to convert the said amount into FDR for the period where it shall earn maximum rate of interest. If the appeal is not decided within the said period the FDR shall be renewed accordingly. The amount so deposited shall be subject to the decision of the appeal. It is, however, made clear that in case the appeal is dismissed, the difference of interest on account of the rate of interest allowed by the court and that allowed by the bank, shall be paid by the State. In case the appellant fails to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, then the stay would automatically stand vacated.” Considering the directions contained in the aforesaid order, it is directed that the amount kept in fixed deposit with State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch through Registrar of this Court, be transferred to the Executing Court forthwith which shall be disbursed to the land owners in accordance with law R.F.A. No. 5627 of 2001 [4] keeping in view the interim order passed by this court. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2010 mk