R.F.A. No. 872 of 2003 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 872 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.11.2010 State of Haryana and others .. Appellants v. Mahesh Kumar .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the land owners. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 872 to 880, 1053, 1205 to 1208, 1420, 2162, 2503 of 2003, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 872 of 2003. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 18.12.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 43 kanals and 15 marlas, situated in village Raliawas, Tehsil and District Rewari, was acquired by the State of Haryana for construction of extension of Raliawas Distributory from Km 8.570 to Km 10.310 by the Irrigation Department. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 6.1.2000, assessed the market value @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 1,80,000/- per acre for Narmoth land and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for 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 market value of the acquired land @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for land owners raised a solitary argument, namely, R.F.A. No. 872 of 2003 [ 2] that though the learned court below has rightly relied upon sale deed (Ex. P1) for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land as part of the land therefrom was also acquired, but has failed to add increase thereon on account of time gap which was one year and four months. Sale deed (Ex. P1) was registered on 13.8.1996, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 18.12.1997. He further submitted that no cut was also required to be applied considering the fact that the area dealt with in the sale deed was 2 kanals and 10 marlas and the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of extension of Distributory and for the total land measuring 43 kanals and 15 marlas, acquired for the purpose, there were 15 owners. The land owned by each of the persons was quite small. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the smallness of the area dealt with in the sale deed sought to be relied upon by the learned court below, a reasonable cut was required to be applied. The learned court below has done away with the categorisation of land in terms of which the value had been assessed by the Collector as per the revenue record. The sale deeds produced by the State were required to be considered, which clearly justified the award of the Collector. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The land in question in the present case was acquired for the purpose of construction of a Distributory. As far as reliance on sale deed (Ex. P1) for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land is concerned, the same could not possibly be disputed for the reason that the land pertaining thereto was forming part of the acquired land. The aforesaid sale deed was registered one year and four months prior to the present acquisition. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that value of the land in the recent past has been increasing at a fast pace. Award of increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap is judicially accepted. The contention raised by learned counsel for the State that a cut is required to be applied in the value shown in the sale deed (Ex. P1) is just to be noticed and rejected considering the fact that it is a small acquisition of 43 kanals and 15 marlas of land, which is owned by 15 different persons. The sale deed (Ex. P1) is pertaining to 2 kanals and 10 marlas of land. Considering the time gap of 16 months in between, in my opinion, increase @ 12% per annum on the consideration paid in the sale deed (Ex. P1) would be quite reasonable. Per acre price paid therein was ` 5,60,000/-. Adding 16% therein, the value of the land would come out to ` 6,49,600/- per acre, which R.F.A. No. 872 of 2003 [ 3] is rounded off to ` 6,50,000/- per acre. The land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 6,50,000/- per acre for the acquired land. In addition to the said amount of compensation, they shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.11.2010 mk