RFA No. 21 of 1989 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 20.9.2010 1. RFA No. 21 of 1989 (O&M) Siri Ram Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana .... Respondent 2. RFA No. 289 of 1989 (O&M) Pritam Kaur and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. K. G. Chaudhry, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the aforesaid appeals as the same arise out of common acquisition. The landowners have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.11.1980 published on 2.12.1980, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land measuring 6.91 acres situated in Village Arnecha, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, for construction of link road from Arnecha to Nanakpur. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 24.3.1981 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 12,000/- per acre for chahi, ` 10,000/- per acre for barani, ` 8,000/- per acre for banjar and ` 4,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kinds of land. 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 6.9.1988 dismissed their claim. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below had failed to consider the evidence led by the appellants and wrongly rejected their claim. It was submitted that sale-deed dated 21.5.1985, Ex. A-4, produced on record by the appellants was wrongly rejected. The prayer was that the same be considered and compensation be enhanced. RFA No. 21 of 1989 -2- On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had rightly rejected the claim of the appellants and upheld the award of the Collector. Considering the evidence no case for enhancement is made out as the sale-deed, Ex. A-4, was registered more than four years after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper- book, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Vide sale-deed, Ex. A-4, the land measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas was sold on 21.5.1985 for a sum of ` 46,000/-. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 3.11.1980 and published on 2.12.1980. As the sale-deed, Ex. A-4, was executed more than four years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, the court below had rightly not relied upon the same. The other sale-deeds relied upon by the landowners pertained to other villages. No site plan showing the location of the land viz-a-viz the land in question was produced on record. No other point was raised by either of the parties. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below. The award of the court below is upheld and the appeals filed by the landowners are dismissed. 20.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge