RFA No.315 of 1995 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 315 of 1995 Decided on November 17,2008. State of Haryana and another -- Appellants vs. Smt.Phuli and another --Respondents. Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.D.A.G,Haryana, for the appellants None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This order shall dispose of fifty appeals filed by both the State of Haryana as well as the claimants/landowners i.e. RFA Nos. 315, 316, 317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341of1995,2162 of 1996, 2881, 2882, 2883, 2884, 2885, 2886, 2889, 2890, 2892, 2893, 2894, 2895, 2896, 2897, 2898, 2899,2900, 2901,2902,2967 of 1994, 17 and 18 of 1995, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land situated in the revenue estate of village Khukhrana, Hadbast No.24, Tehsil and District Panipat, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short,'the Act') dated 25.7.1989 RFA No.315 of 1995 2 published on 21.8.1989, partly at public expenses and partly at the expenses of Haryana State Electricity Board for a public purposes namely for the extension of Ash Disposal of area for Stage-IV of Panipat Thermal Project and notification for declaration under Section 6 of the Act, was issued on 14.3.1993. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the land into following categories:- 1. Nehri 971K-10M 2. Banjar Qadim Thur 23K-17 M 3. GairMumkin Tubewell 1 K-01M 4. Gair Mumkin Chab 0K-16M 5. Gair Mumkin Khadan 4 K-08M 6. Gair Mumkin Rasta 21K07M 7. Gair Mumkin Khand 5K-05M. ----------------------------------------- Total: 1028K-04M ------------------------------------------------ and awarded the compensation as under:- Nehri,GairMumkin Tubewell Rs.50,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Khand GairMumkin Chah Rasta: Rs.40,000/- per acre Not being contended with the award of the Collector, the matter was taken to the Civil Court by the landowners by way of filing objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was alleged that the market value of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 200/- per square yard. It was alleged that the land in question is situated at a distance of 4 kilometer from the RFA No.315 of 1995 3 Industrial Town of Panipat and the area in the locality of the acquired land was fast coming up as an Industrial area and number of factories and commercial establishments were in existence near the acquired land; that the colony of thermal power project was also situated just adjacent to the acquired land and it was most suitable for residential,commercial and industrial purposes. While contesting the claim of the landowners/claimants, the State of Haryana controverted the allegations and alleged that adequate and fair compensation has already been granted to the landowners. The landowners examined PW-1 Dharam Singh, PW-2 Ant Ram, PW-3 Dalip Singh DRA, D.C Office, PW-4 Ved Parkash son of Hari Singh, PW-5 Raj pal Draftsman. Copy of the notification Ex.P-6 and copy of the sale deed Ex.P7 were also tendered in evidence. State of Haryana examined RW1 Jagmal Singh Patwari, RW-2 Balraj Kumar, RW-3 K.G.Aggarwal, Assistant Engineer and RW-4 Mohan Lal. The petitioners by way of additional evidence tendered Ex.P-8 copy of award dated 1.8.1991, Ex.P-9 copy f the sale deed dated 27.3.1989 and Ex.P-10 copy of the sale deed dated 27.3.1989 and Ex.P-10 copy of notification dated 25.7.1989. After considering the entire evidence in detail, the learned Addl. District Judge, Panipat, vide his award dated 09.9.1994, determined the compensation of the acquired land at flat rate of Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre, besides awarding statutory benefits in terms of provisions of amended Act. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the landowners/claimants. However, Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.D.A.G, Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of the State of Haryana in the appeals filed by it and RFA No.315 of 1995 4 as respondents in the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that the learned Reference Court has committed a palpable error in relying upon copy of sale deed Ex. P-9 and award contained in Exs. P-3 and P-8 while determining market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,40,000/- per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Copy of the award Ex.P-3 is dated 13.12.1993 pertaining to the land situated in village Jattal which was acquired through the same notification vide which the present land has been acquired. In that acquisition, compensation @ Rs.,1,40,000/- per acre was determined. Thereafter, in LA Case No. 2 of 1992 titled Satish and others v. State of Haryana of village Sutana, compensation @ Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre was assessed. Copy of the sale deed Ex.P9 shows that the land measuring 2 Kanals of village Sutana was sold for Rs. 50,000/- out of killa No. 17/3 situated towards east, the price of which comes to Rs.2,00,000/-per acre. It was found that village Khukhrana (present acquisition) and village Sutana adjoin each other. Rather, the land of village Sutana, Khukhrana and Jattal was acquired through the same notification and the learned Court below while considering the sale deed Ex.P-9 dated 27.3.1989 found that the land in question was acquired on 25.7.1989 and notification was published on 21.8.1989 and after applying a cut of 1/3rd to the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, the market value comes to Rs1,33,334/- per acre, but since the land of village Jattal, Khukhrana and Sutana, was acquired through the same notification and compensation for village Jattal and Sutana has already been determined @ Rs.1,40,000/- per acre, the Reference court has not committed any error by applying the same yard-stick for determination of the compensation of village Khukshrana @ RFA No.315 of 1995 5 Rs,1,40,000/- per acre. Thus, I do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the State of Haryana that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in assessing the compensation on the basis of compensation determined for village Jattal, and Sutana. No other point has been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the State. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeals both filed by the State of Haryana as well as the claimants/landowners and dismiss the same without any order as to costs. November 17,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge