RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Dharambir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2647 of 2011(O&M) Shamsher Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2648 of 2011(O&M) Satyawan and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2649 of 2011(O&M) Dhanpati and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2650 of 2011(O&M) Raj Pal and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2651 of 2011(O&M) Umed Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 2 RFA No.2652 of 2011(O&M) Ram Kumar and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2653 of 2011(O&M) Hira Nand and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2654 of 2011(O&M) Jagbir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2655 of 2011(O&M) Jage Ram and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2656 of 2011(O&M) Hira Nand and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2657 of 2011(O&M) Chander and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2658 of 2011(O&M) Dalbir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 3 RFA No.2659 of 2011(O&M) Balbir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2670 of 2011(O&M) Bhani and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2671 of 2011(O&M) Ram Phal and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2672 of 2011(O&M) Kitab Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2673 of 2011(O&M) Dharambir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2674 of 2011(O&M) Hari Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2675 of 2011(O&M) Ram Niwas and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 4 RFA No.2676 of 2011(O&M) Rishi Ram and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2677 of 2011(O&M) Inder s/o Pat Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2678 of 2011(O&M) Smt. Roshi and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2679 of 2011(O&M) Shyam and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2680 of 2011(O&M) Jogi Ram and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4016 of 2011(O&M) Balbir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4017 of 2011(O&M) Om Prakash and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 5 RFA No.4018 of 2011(O&M) Azad s/o Munshi Ram ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4019 of 2011(O&M) Kishan Lal ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4020 of 2011(O&M) Sube Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4021 of 2011(O&M) Subhash ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4022 of 2011(O&M) Maha Singh and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4023 of 2011(O&M) Mahabir and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.4024 of 2011(O&M) Daya Nand and others ......Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 6 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 34 Regular First Appeals i.e. RFA Nos.2646 to 2659, 2670 to 2680 and 4016 to 4024 2011 as the same have arisen out of one common award of the Reference Court dated 24.9.2010, determining market value, of the land in dispute pertaining to Village Bass Akbarpur, which was acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) on 24.11.2004 for a public purpose namely to construct Bass Multipurpose Channel on State expenditure. The Land Acquisition Collector had assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of ` 5 lacs per acre irrespective of the kind of land along with statutory benefits vide his award dated 20.12.2005. Aggrieved from the aforesaid award, the land owners/interested persons qua the acquired land made applications under Section 18 of the Act alleging that the acquired land was very fertile and valuable and the amount of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was insufficient and inadequate and while determining the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector failed to consider the potentiality of the land in question and various other factors which are relevant for determining the market value of the land. The market value of the acquired land was not less than ` 40 lacs per acre. On receipt of the aforesaid reference applications, the same were referred to the Court of District Judge, Hisar for adjudication. RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 7 In the written statement, the respondent-State besides taking preliminary objections, pleaded that the awarded amount was more than reasonable compensation which was determined after taking into account relevant factors and the rates prevailing in the area at the time of acquisition. In order to prove their case, the appellants examined Sham Lal Patwari, from the office of District Revenue Officr as PW-1 and proved the award No.30-H dated 20.12.2005 (Ex.P1) of the Land Acquisition Collector and award No.23-H dated 31.12.2008 (Ex.P2). Randhir Singh son of Roop Chand, one of the claimants, stepped into witness box as PW2 who tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.P12. Satywan son of Shri Sube Singh was examined as Ex.P.13 who tendered into his evidence as Ex.P- 13. The respondents in order to rebut the evidence of the appellants examined Ramphal, Sub Divisional Officer, Hansi Water Services Sub Division No.2 as RW-1, who tendered into evidence his affidavit and also placed reliance upon documents Ex.R-2 minutes of meeting headed by then Commissioner, Hisar Division and award Ex.R-3. After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the reference Court vide impugned award, assessed the market value of the land in question at ` 6 lacs per acre irrespective of the kind of land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Still not satisfied, the land owners/interested persons have filed the instant appeals, challenging the impugned award of the reference Court on the ground that the reference Court has ignored material evidence placed on record with regard to market price of the land and that the acquisition has resulted in bifurcation of their land and were, thus, entitled to additional compensation on account of severance allowance. Not only RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 8 this, it is further grouse of the appellants that while determining the compensation, the market price prevailing in the area and potentiality of the land in question has been ignored and thus, the impugned award was liable to be modified to the extent of granting higher compensation to the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award as well as evidence on record of the reference Court with the help of counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, there is no evidence led by the appellants on record before the reference Court showing the market value of the land in dispute. The documentary evidence placed on record of the reference Court do not refer to any sale instance or other admissible evidence which is relevant for determining such market value. The recommendations of the State Government in awarding price @ 8 lacs per acre for the land to be acquired within the area of Village Kutubpur, Ramayana and Sultanpur is of no help to the appellants, as it has not been shown as to how the aforesaid market value for other villages is comparable to the land in question. The reliance of the appellants on a subsequent award No.23- H dated 31.12.2008 (Ex.P-2) vide which land of village Bass Hajamshapur was assessed @ Rs.8 lacs per acre is misconceived as the said award has been passed subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant case and there is a gap of about three and a half year in the date of issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Act in this case as well as in the case based on award Ex.P-2. As per Section 24 of the Act, no subsequent fact to the acquisition of notification under Section 4 of the Act can be considered for the assessment of compensation and such fact can be considered only to establish that there is a rising trend of prices. Not only this, even if the clock is reverted back RFA No.2646 of 2011(O&M) 9 from 21.5.2008 (i.e. the date of notification under section 4 of the Act in the award Ex.P2) to 24.11.2004 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the instant appeals, a cut is applied on the compensation amounting to Rs.8 lacs, the same will be less than Rs.6 lacs which has already been awarded to the appellants by the Reference Court. It is well settled that circle rates/floor prices for registration of land in the area cannot be made basis for determining the market price of the acquired land and thus, no enhancement can be made on the basis of the floor rates @ Rs.8 lacs per acre announced by the State of Haryana as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in these appeals. No other argument was raised. Dismissed. Since these appeals have been dismissed, no other application survive. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. October 31, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE