R.F.A. No.2908 of 1993 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.2908 of 1993 Date of decision : 16.02.2009 The State of Punjab and others .....Appellants Versus Bhola Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondents S. D. ANAND, J. The land measuring 33.11 acres situated within revenue estate of village Salempur, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala was acquired by the State of Punjab for the construction of SYL canal. The notification (No. 2902/W-II/S.Y.L. Dated 13.12.1982 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued; while the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued vide No. 91 dated 7.1.1983. The Land Acquisition Collector, SYL Project, Punjab vide award No. 8/P-SYL dated 23.3.1984 proposed the following compensation:- Sr.No. Class of land Area (K/\-M) Rate per acre 1. Chahi 195-2 Rs. 18,000/- 2. Nehri 57-19 Rs. 18,000/- 3. Gair Mumkin 11-17 Rs. 10,000/- The matter was, thereafter, referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge. Learned Reference Court relied upon award Ex. A/1 dated R.F.A. No.2908 of 1993 -2- **** 21.7.1986 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Patiala and awarded compensation at the following rates:- “(i) Chahi ... Rs.50,000/- per acre. (ii) Nehri ... Rs.50,000/- per acre. (iii) Gair Mumkin ... Rs.12,000/- per acre.” The reference Court declined to rely upon Ex.R-1 which was a copy of sale deed dated 1.6.1982. In that context, the following observations were made by the reference Court:- “7. No oral evidence has been led by the parties. The claimants rely upon award dated 21.07.1986, Ex.A-1 of Shri T.S.Cheema, the learned Distt. Judge, Patiala which arose out of the same award of the Land Acquisition Collector as in the present case. In rebuttal the respondents has produced copy of sale deed dated 1.6.1982, Ex.R-1 which indicates that land measuring 12 Kanal 4 Marlas was sold for a consideration of Rs.12000/- which means at the rate of Rs.7840/- per acre. 8. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre for the inferior most quality of land. It follows that the sale deed Ex.R-1 was not even considered worth of it by the Land Acquisition Collector. That being so, the said sale instance carries no credence and cannot be the basis of any finding regarding market value of the land. 9. The award Ex.A-1 determined value of the land of the same village acquired vide same notification as in the present case. Vide that award the claimants were given compensation at the following rates: - R.F.A. No.2908 of 1993 -3- **** (i) Chahi ... Rs.50,000/- per acre. (ii) Nehri ... Rs.50,000/- per acre. (iii) Gair Mumkin ... Rs.12,000/- per acre. There is no reason why the claimants in the present case be been treated at par. There is absolutely no evidence if the disputed land of the claimants is at any disadvantageous location as compared to the land covered under award Ex.A-1. It is stated that Award Ex.A-1 has not been modified in appeal. Accordingly, the market value of the acquired land is determined as under: - (i) Chahi ... Rs.50,000/- per acre. (ii) Nehri ... Rs.50,000/- per acre. (iii) Gair Mumkin ... Rs.12,000/- per acre. This issue is decided accordingly.” In the light of the above facts, it is apparent that the finding recorded by the learned reference Court cannot be faulted on any valid score. The Court place reliance upon the award Annexure A-1 of the Court of District Judge, Patiala. It is not the plea on behalf of the appellants that the verdict aforementioned had been appealed against. The assumption, thus, is that award Annexure A-1 had attained finality. Further, the reasoning recorded for discarding Ex. R-1 an appropriate. The appeal is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 16, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No