RFA No. 666 of 1994 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.7.2010 (1) RFA No.666 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Jit Singh and others .....Respondents (2) RFA No.667 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Jumma Singh (deceased) through LRs .....Respondents (3) RFA No.668 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Gurmukh Singh and others .....Respondents (4) RFA No.669 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Sohan Singh and others .....Respondents (5) RFA No.670 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Balwant Singh .....Respondent RFA No. 666 of 1994 [2] (6) RFA No.671 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Jumma Singh (deceased) through LRs .....Respondents (7) RFA No.672 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Milkha Singh and another .....Respondents (8) RFA No.673 of 1994 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Hakam Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. None for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This bunch of appeals, filed by the State, seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land, pertain to the year 1994. The acquisition of land was carried out way back in April, 1988. When the cases were taken up for hearing on 5.4.2010, this court passed the following order: “The case was shown in the taken up list a number of times. However, counsel for the respondent(s) never appeared. Least the interest of the respondent(s) suffer on account of the absence of counsel, Punjab Legal Services Authority is requested to appoint a counsel to appear on behalf of the respondent(s). Adjourned to 5.5.2010.” The office reported that Ms. Sonika Kapadia, Advocate had been RFA No. 666 of 1994 [3] appointed by the Punjab State Legal Services Authority to appear on behalf of the respondents, however, on the next date, Mr. S. S. Joshi, Advocate appeared and requested for adjournment. The cases were adjourned for 5.7.2010. Thereafter, the same were shown in the taken up list on 16.7.2010, 19.7.2010 and today, i.e., 20.7.2010, but counsel for the respondents did not appear. As the cases are quite old, the same cannot be kept pending. Accordingly, the same were taken up for hearing. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 5.4.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land situated in village Faridpur, Hadbast No. 264, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was acquired for the purpose of construction of Jansura minor. The same was followed by notification dated 22.4.1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 60,000/- per acre for Abi land; ` 50,000/- per acre for Rousli land and ` 35,040/- 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 @ ` 24,000/- per bigha for Rousli kind of land. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has gone totally wrong in assessing the value of the acquired land @ ` 24,000/- per bigha in spite of the fact that while discussing the issue regarding determination of fair value of the acquired land, it was opined that the value thereof is ` 15,000/- per bigha. After hearing learned counsel for the State, I do not find it justifiable to interfere in the present set of appeals at this stage, considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 5.4.1988 for a small chunk of land measuring 5.31 acres for the purpose of construction of Jansua minor. Value of three categories of land was determined @ ` 60,000/- per acre for Abi kind of land; ` 50,000/- per acre for Rousli kind of land and ` 35,040/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. The learned court below enhanced the compensation only for Rousli kind of land, which would be quite small considering the total land acquired. As the amount of compensation has already been paid to the land owners and more than two decades have already gone by, even if there is some error in calculation of amount of compensation, I do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned award at this stage. RFA No. 666 of 1994 [4] Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 20.7.2010 mk