RFA No.2835 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2835 of 1992 Date of Decision:16.12.2008 State of Punjab --Appellant vs. Sarup Singh and others --Respondentxs. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Preseent: Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab,for the appellant None for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of nine Regular Frist Appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2835, 2836, 2837,2838, 2839, 2840,2841,2842 and 2843 of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. An area of 4.03 acres situated in village Dadumajra, Hadbast No.246, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,' the Act') dated 9/10.3.1987 followed by a notification of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, for public purpose, namely for the construction of Bohakheri distribitory from R.D.0 to 5342 kilometers. The Land Acquisition Collector S.Y.L.Canal Project Patiala RFA No.2835 of 1992 2 (for short, the Collector) found the actual area under acquisition to be 3.81 acre instead of 4.03 acre and vide his award No.218/P-SYL dated 10.9.1987, compensation was assessed as under:- Sr. No. Kind of land Area Rate per acre B B 1 Chahi 18 1 Rs.60,000/- 2. Gair Mumkin 0 5 Rs.35,000/- The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector. They filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and claimed compensation @ Rs.2 lacs per acre. The State of Punjab filed written statement refuting the claim of the landowner-claimants on the ground that fair and adequate cosmpensation has already been granted by the Collector. The parties to the lis led their evidence. The claimants examined Sahib Ram as AW-1, Darshan Singh Patwari as AW-2 Sarup Singh as AW-3 and also relied upon copies of previous awards Exs. A-3, A-4 and A-5. In reply, the State of Punjab tendered copies of sale deeds Exs. R-1 and R-2. The learned d Reference Court, while relying upon the previous award Ex.A-5 pertaining to village Naraina assessed the compensation @ Rs.1,25,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.55,000/-per acre for Gair Mumkin land besides awarding statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act. Mr.N.S.Pawar, learned counsel for the appellant-State of Punjab has contended that the learned Reference Court has erred in relying upon copy of award Ex.A-5 pertaining to village Naraina since that village (Naraina) is at a distance fo about 8/9 kilometers from RFA No.2835 of 1992 3 village Dadumajra. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his asistance. It has come in the evidence that lands of village Dadumajra and Polwal adjoin the land of village Naraina. Moreover, plan Ex.A-1 shows that the land of village Dadumajra is adjacent to the land of village Naraina. Nothing has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant from which it can be inferred that distance between the villages Naraina and Dadumajra is 8/9 kilometers. In view of the above finding on record that land of village Naraina adjoins the land of village Dadumajra, I do not find any error in the award of the learned Reference Court dated 1.2.1992 which is based upon Ex. A-5 for the purpose of determining the compensation in the present cases. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. December 16,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge