RFA No.1108 of 1992& X Obj No.54-CI of 1992. 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Decided on 09.3.2009. Haryana State through Collector,Gurgaon and another --Appellants vs. Bosa Ram (dead) through his LRs and others --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra,Sr.DAG,Haryana, for appellants in RFA Nos. 3645 to 3653 of 1993 and 1108 of 1992 with X-Obj No.54-CI of 1992 filed by the claimants/landowners represented by Mr.C.B.Goel.Advocate, with Mr.Nitin Jain,Advocate. Mr.C.B.Goel,Advocate with Mr.Nitin Jain,Advocates, for the appellants in RFA Nos.3343 to 3348 and 3357 of 1993, and 2069 and 2070 of 1995 and Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr. Rajiv kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana, for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) This order shall dispose of 19 Regular First Appeals bearing RFA Nos.1108 of 1992 filed by the State of Haryana and X Obj No.54- CI of 1992 filed by the claimants, 3343 to 3348 and 3357 of 1993, 2069 and 2070 of 1995 filed by the claimants/landowners and 3645 to 3653 of 1993 filed by the State of Haryana as identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals which are being disposed RFA No.1108 of 1992& X Obj No.54-CI of 1992. 2 of by this common judgment. The facts are taken from RFA No.1108 of 1992 (O&M). Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short,'the Act'), dated 3.2.1981 followed by a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 30.9.1981, land measuring 16.12 acres situated in village Farrukh Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was acquired for the construction of approach road from Farrukh Nagar to Fazalpur Badli. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector), vide his award dated 20.3.1985 assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sr.No. Nature of land Value per acre 1. Chahi: Rs.9120/- 2. Bhood: Rs.5120/- 3. Banjar: Rs.3200/- 4. GairMumkin Rasta Rs.2000/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants tendered following sale deeds:- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ex. Area sold Date of sale Sale consideration Rate per square yard P-2 23 kanals 3.6.1987 Rs.5,03,000/- Rs.36/- P-3 0-19Kanals 1.5.1982 Rs. 11,000/- Rs.19/- P-4 666sq.yds 22.8.1984 Rs. 50,000/- Rs.78/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RFA No.1108 of 1992& X Obj No.54-CI of 1992. 3 On the contrary, the respondents-State produced the following sale deeds:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R-1 30K 6 M 21.7.80 Rs.20,000/- Rs.1.09P R-2 33K 14 M 26.12.80 Rs.25,000/- Rs.1.23P R-3 15 K 11M 6.1.1981 Rs.12,000/- Rs.1.28P - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No oral evidence was led by the respondents. At the time of hearing, the appellants also placed on record a certified copy of the judgment of the High Court dated 24.11.1988 as Ex. CX relating to the land of village Dundahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The learned reference Court brushed aside the sale deeds Ex.P-2 and P-4 as they relate to the year 1987 and 1984 respectively. The only sale deed relied upon is Ex.P-3 of the year 1982 which as per Aks Shijra, relates to the land simiarly situated to the acquired land. The learned Reference Court observed that the judgment Ex.CX shows that the High Court has awarded Rs.52.50 per square yard for the land situated in village Dundahera acquired vide notification dated 06.7.1982 but keeping in view the fact that the acquired land is situated within municipal area of Farrukh Nagar, the reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.20/- per square yard. The decision rendered by the reference Court which is subject matter of the present appeal was relied upon by the claimants in other appeals RFA No.1108 of 1992& X Obj No.54-CI of 1992. 4 which were disposed of in same terms. Mr.C.B.Goel, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is inadequate because the learned reference Court should have taken into consideration the compensation awarded in the case of acquisition of village Dundahera, where for the acquisition of the year 1981, the compensation @ Rs. 52.50 paise has been determined On the contrary, Mr.H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General,Haryana, assisted by Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,Haryana has contended that the land of Dundahera is situated towards Delhi whereas land of village Farrukh Nagar is towards Rewari. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. I am not in agreement with the contention raised by learned counsel for the claimants that the compensation should have been awarded in terms of the order passed in the case of acquisition of land of village Dundahera because there is no comparison of land of village Dundahera to the land of village Farrukh Nagar as both are located at a great distance. I also do not find any reason to reduce the compensation awarded by the reference Court In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in RFA No.1108 of 1992& X Obj No.54-CI of 1992. 5 the appeals and X objection filed by the landowners/claimants as well as the appeals filed by the State of Haryana./Hence, all the appeals and the X-objection are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 0.9.3.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge