R. F. A No. 35 of 1992 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 10.12.2008 1. R. F. A No. 35 of 1992 (O&M) Sonia Bala ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 36 of 1992 (O&M) Raj Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 152 of 1992 (O&M) Neelam ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent 4. R. F. A No. 153 of 1992 (O&M) Shori Lal ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent 5. R. F. A No. 154 of 1992 (O&M) Vipan Kumar ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent 6. R. F. A No. 155 of 1992 (O&M) Sushil Kumar ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 156 of 1992 (O&M) Parmod Kumar ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 765 of 1992 (O&M) Rajat Mathur ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ... Respondent R. F. A No. 35 of 1992 (2) Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. Nos. 35 and 36 of 1992. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants in R. F. A. No. 765 of 1992. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 35, 36, 152 to 156 and 765 of 1992, filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation, arising out of the same acquisition. However, the facts have been noticed from R. F. A. No. 35 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 21.5.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 13 kanals 5 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of Village Suba Akbarpur, Hadbast No. 49, Tehsil and District Ambala, for construction of Government Polytechnic for Women, Ambala City. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 100/- per square yard. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 25.9.1991, upheld the award of the Collector. It is this award which is under challenge before this court in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a perusal of the evidence produced by them on record shows that the acquired land which was a small piece of land measuring 13 kanals 5 marlas only was located strategically-sandwich by officers' colony, DC residence and Sessions House. The entire area in the vicinity had already been developed. Even old Sessions Court was also not at a far off place. GT Road was merely half a kilometer from the site, which was part of the municipal limit where the land was being sold in square yards. As big chunk of land was not available. Otherwise also big chunk of land is more valuable because better planning is possible therein for carving out plots etc. He further submitted that the learned court below has totally failed to consider the sale-deeds Ex. R. F. A No. 35 of 1992 (3) P-4 to P-7 produced on record by the appellants showing value of the land in the near area ranging from Rs. 160/- per square yard to Rs. 660/- per square yard. The learned court below has gone wrong in dismissing the reference while upholding the award of the Collector who had merely determined the value of the land at Rs. 100/- per square yard. Otherwise also near the land in question, small residential plots had been carved out which were being sold. To show the location of the land, reference was made to site plan Ex. P-3. To locate the plots dealt with in the sale-deeds Ex. P-4 to P-7, the submission is that the land was forming part of Hadbast No. 49, Village Suba Akbarpur. The sale-deed Ex. P-6 is pertaining to the same area and was the best piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land. No cut as such should be applied to determine the value of the acquired land shown in that sale-deed as it is part of already urbanised area and within the municipal limits. However, still if a cut is to be applied it should not be more than 1/3rd considering the aforesaid factors. . It was further submitted that even Haryana Urban Development Authority had also acquired land quite close to land in question for developing the same as residential colony where the plots have been sold at exhorbitant prices. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Collector in the present case had determined the value of the land much more than what the landowners deserved. In fact, the sale- deeds produced by the State were showing less value of the land in the area and it was only the Collector's rate which was more than that and the acquired land was valued at that rate. He further submitted that best piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land is Ex. P-10 to P-20 which are sale instances of various plots measuring 200 square yards to 300 square yards where the consideration paid was around Rs. 90/- to 95/- per square yard for the sale-deeds registered in the year 1984-85. These sale instances, forming part of the acquired land, are only the relevant piece of evidence and if considered it cannot be said that the award of the Collector in the present case calls for any interference. As far as the location of the land is concerned, that being located on Ex. P-3 could not be disputed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance R. F. A No. 35 of 1992 (4) perused the relevant referred record. As far as reliance on the sale-deeds Ex. P-4 to P-7 purduced by the landowners is concerned, in my considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in not placing reliance thereon. Though the site plan has been placed on record for the land under acquisition, but location of none of the sale deeds referred to and relied upon by the appellants has been located to compare the location thereof vis- a-vis the acquired land. In the absence of this, it would be totally inappropriate to place reliance thereon. In sale-deed Ex. P-6 on which much stress was laid was for a plot measuring 70 square yards, which is located on GT Road. As against this, there is ample evidence in the form of sale- deeds Ex. P-10 to P-20 whereby small plots measuring 200 square yards to 300 square yards were sold at rates ranging from Rs. 90/- per square yards to Rs. 95/- per square yards during the period 1984-85. The land pertaining to all these sale-deeds, forming part of acquired land, is the best piece of evidence available on record. The learned court below in the present case upheld the award of the Collector granting compensation @ Rs. 100/- per square yard. However, considering the fact that the location of the land is quite strategic which was having great further potential value as well, in my opinion, some increase on the value as shown in the sale-deeds forming part of acquired land is required and that too only on account of time gap. The last sale-deed Ex. P- 17 was registered on 10.6.1985, where the consideration was paid at the rate of Rs. 95/- per square yard. The notification in the present case was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 21.5.1986. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to grant increase of 12% thereon and by adding Rs. 11/- to Rs. 95/-, the value of the acquired land is determined at Rs. 106/- per square yard. The appellants are also entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are allowed. 10.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge