RFA No.1957 of 1997 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.1957 of 1997 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 01.7.2010 **** Babu Ram and another . . . . Appellants VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.M.L. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Ram Lal Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of 9 Regular First Appeals bearing RFA Nos. 272, 989, 1260, 1940, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 2199 of 1997 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are, however, being extracted from RFA No.1957 of 1997 titled as “Babu Ram and another Versus State of Punjab”. Land measuring 81.94 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Parchh, Tehsil Kharar, District Rupnagar was notified under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 19.3.1990 followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 8.4.1990. The land was acquired for public purpose, namely for setting up of Parchh Dam. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘the RFA No.1957 of 1997 - 2 - Collector’) vide his award No.123 dated 2.6.1992 assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Barani : Rs.43,437/- per acre. Gair Mumkin : Rs.3,500/- per acre. The landowners/appellants were not satisfied with the award. Therefore, they filed objection to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act which was referred by him to the Civil Court for the purpose of adjudication. After obtaining the pleadings and evidence on behalf of the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, vide his order dated 08.11.1996 passed under Section 23 of the Act, reassessed the compensation of the acquired land as under: Barani : Rs.80,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin : Rs.65,000/- per acre. Still dissatisfied, the appellants have come up in Regular First Appeals before this Court. Mr.M.L. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned Court below instead of relying upon a decision of the coordinate Court in the case of “Ram Kishan Versus Punjab State” decided on 3.10.1996 in which rate of Barani land was assessed @ Rs.80,000/- per acre in respect of land of the same village should have been taken into consideration the sale deed (EX.A-6) dated 15.6.1990 of the land measuring 0 kanal 15 marlas situated in village Parchh, which was sold for a sum of Rs.15000/- by Shadi to Nirbair Singh. It was alleged that the total sale consideration per acre was Rs.1,60,000/- and if a cut of 25% is applied to the land being small plot, the compensation should not be less than Rs.1,20,000/-. RFA No.1957 of 1997 - 3 - On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has argued that the said sale deed cannot be taken into consideration for various reasons, firstly, the acquired land is a hilly terrain, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Dam whereas the land in the sale deed (Ex.A-6) is of the village, secondly, no site plan has been produced on record to indicate the distance of the acquired land from the land involved in the sale deed (Ex.A-6) and finally the area of the acquired land is too small to be compared with the acquired land, which is 81.94 acres. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Insofar as the sale deed (Ex.A-6) is concerned, to my mind it has rightly been not relied upon by the Court below for the reasons that it does not project the true market value of the acquired land as it lacks comparison because the acquired land is a huge chunk of land of 81.94 acres whereas the sale instance (Ex.A-6) pertains to only 15 marlas of land which is situated in the village. Therefore, in my view, compensation assessed by the Court below in respect of Barani land from Rs.43,437/- per acre to Rs.80,000/- per acre and of Gair Mumkin land from Rs.3500/- per acre to Rs.65,000/- per acre, is in accordance with law. The decision in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) which is based upon an agreement between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and the Committee of SYL Canal as reflected in the case of “State of Punjab Versus Surjan Singh” 1990(1) PLR 278. No other argument has been raised. In view of above, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Court below as such the same is hereby dismissed, though, without any order as to costs. RFA No.1957 of 1997 - 4 - (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 01.07.2010 JUDGE Vivek