R.F.A. No. 880 of 2000 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 880 of 2000 and Cross Objections No. 85-CI of 2000(O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2011 State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Gram Panchayat, village Riwasa, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Mittal and Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocates for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 880 to 885, 956 of 2000 and 1733 of 2001 and cross objections Nos. 71 and 85-CI of 2000, 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 awarded to the land owners for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals and cross-objections 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. 880 of 2000. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 3.2.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 30 kanals and 18 marlas of land , situated within the revenue estate of village Riwasa Hadbast No. 62, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh for construction of 220 K.V. Sub-station at Mahendergarh. The same was followed by notification dated 14.7.1994, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 30.1.1996, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,96,000/- per acre. R.F.A. No. 880 of 2000 [ 2] 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 @ ` 7,84,516/- per acre. It is this award which is impugned by both the parties before this court. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that though the learned court below has relied upon sale deed (Ex. P10), the land pertaining to which is forming part of the acquired land, but still for the time gap of 22 months, increase only @ 20% has been awarded. If the same is considered @ 12% per annum, it should have been 22%. The land owners are entitled to increase in the value of acquired land to that extent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the amount already awarded by the learned court below is much higher. The sale deeds produced by the State have not been considered at all, though the same clearly justify the award of the Collector. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 3.2.1994. Even three months thereafter when sale deed (Ex. R6) was registered on 19.5.1994, 19 kanals and 2 marlas of land was sold for merely ` 5,50,000/-. Even the award of the Collector was more than that. The other sale deeds produced by the State also clearly justified the award of the Collector, even though those have been registered much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as consideration of sale deeds produced by the State is concerned, I do not find that any of them is relevant for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that all of them were registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4of the Act. Not only this, another factor, in terms of which those sale deeds have to be ignored and sale deed (Ex. P10) produced by the land owners is to be preferred, is that the land pertaining thereto is forming part of the acquired land. Sale deed (Ex. P10) was registered on 23.4.1992 for land measuring 4 kanals and 13 marlas for a sale consideration of ` 3,80,000/-, i.e., at an average price of ` 6,53,764/- per acre. The land pertaining thereto being part of the acquired land, the aforesaid sale deed is the best piece of evidence for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. The genuineness of the sale deed is not in dispute. The learned court below considering the time gap of 22 months in the registration of sale deed and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act had awarded increase per acre in the sale consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deed @ 20%, which I find to be quite R.F.A. No. 880 of 2000 [ 3] reasonable, as there is no evidence produced on record by the land owners as such, which could justify any further increase for the time gap. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any case is made out for interference in the award of the learned court below. Accordingly, the appeals and cross objections are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 6.1.2011 mk