R. F. A No. 3794 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 27.4.2009 1. RFA No. 3794 of 1999 (O&M) Janak Raj ..... Appellant vs Punjab State and another ...... Respondents 2. RFA No. 3795 of 1999 (O&M) Faqir Chand ..... Appellant vs Punjab State and another ...... Respondents 3. RFA No. 687 of 2000 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Janak Raj .... Respondent 4. RFA No. 688 of 2000 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Satnam Singh Bains ..... Respondent 5. RFA No. 689 of 2000 (O&M) Punjab State and another ..... Appellants vs Faqir Chand ...... Respondent 6. RFA No. 2231 of 2000 (O&M) Satnam Singh Bains ..... Appellant vs Punjab State and another ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. M. S. Bedi and Mr. P. S. Goraya, Advocates, for the landowners Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 3794, 3795 of 1999 and 2231 of 2000 filed by the landowners, and Regular First Appeal Nos. 687 to 689 of 2000 filed by the State of Punjab, as the same arise out of one acquisition. R. F. A No. 3794 of 1999 2 The claimants have approached this court through the present appeals for further enhancement, whereas the State of Punjab has filed appeals for reduction in the compensation. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 3794 of 1999. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 27.9.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land in the revenue estate of Village Bariar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur for establishment of Engineering College at Gurdaspur. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.11.1995 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri and Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin abadi. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 8.10.1999, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,30,000/- per acre in the case of Janak Raj and Faqir Chand which was located on GT Road and Rs. 3,20,000/- per acre in the case of Satnam Singh. Learned counsel for the landowners fairly stated that though this court had earlier gone into the issue regarding determination of compensation for the land acquired vide same notification in RFA No. 1628 of 2000 Gurdeep Singh and another vs The State of Punjab and another decided on 17.11.2008, however, still in the present set of appeals further evidence in the form of sale-deed, Ex. A- 5, registered on 6.8.1993 is available, whereby 18 marlas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. The land forming part thereof is located just opposite the acquired land. The submission is that if the aforesaid sale-deed is considered, the value of the acquired land certainly deserves to be increased. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the aforesaid sale-deed cannot be considered as the same was registered quite close to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act just with a view to jack up the prices to claim more compensation. It was a small piece of land dealt with therein. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record. The fact that this court had already determined the fair value of the acquired land in Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), acquired vide same notification is not in dispute. The only additional contention which is required to be considered by this court is as to whether the sale-deed, Ex. A-5, produced on record, in the present set of appeals, is relevant piece of evidence to be considered for determination of fair value of the acquired land. A perusal of the sale-deeds, Ex. R. F. A No. 3794 of 1999 3 A-5, shows that the same was registered on 6.8.1993. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was registered on 27.9.1993. The value as is shown in the aforesaid sale-deed cannot be considered to be a relevant piece of evidence because of its being in close proximity to the notification under Section 4 of the Act where the possibility of its having been registered to jack up the prices cannot be ruled out especially when the other sale-deeds produced led by the landowners in Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), clearly established that the value shown therein was quite close to the value of the land as was assessed by the learned Court below. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to deviate from the earlier judgment in Gurdeep Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 27.4.2009 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge