R.F.A. No. 573 of 1998 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 573 of 1998 (O&M) Date of decision: September 14 , 2010 Jarnail Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ishwar Lal and Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 573, 574 and 716 of 1998, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 573 of 1998. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 2.2.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired the land in villages Ramnagar alias Lachhru Khurd and Ghanaur for construction of Ghanaur Sub Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 26.9.1989 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed compensation @ ` 30,000/- per acre for Chahi land and ` 15,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 40,000/- per acre for Chahi R.F.A. No. 573 of 1998 [ 2] land; ` 24,000/- per acre for Rausli land and ` 20,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that sale deed (Ex. A1) produced on record showing the value of the land measuring 6 biswas in village Ghanaur sold for ` 14,400/-, has not been considered by the learned court below while assessing the amount of compensation for the acquired land. Even if the aforesaid sale deed was for a small plot, the acquisition was also not for a big chunk of land, as it was in the form of a strip, where small portions of land of different land owners were acquired and at the most a cut could be applied. The land in question is located quite close to the abadi of Ghanaur, which was a developed area with all basic amenities. Contention was also raised with regard to compensation on account of non-fruit bearing trees standing on the acquired land. The submission was that the plea regarding the same, as raised by the land owners, was not considered by the learned court below. As the trees were standing on the boundaries of the land owned by the land owners, the same were not recorded in the revenue record and it is only the oral evidence which could be led to prove that fact, which was there. Claim for severance was also not considered. In one of the appeals, additional argument raised was regarding valuation of the kotha and tubewell existing on the acquired land. The submission was that as against the claim of ` 30,000/-, merely ` 5,097/- were awarded by the Collector with no enhancement by the learned court below. Another contention raised was with regard to loss suffered on account of damage to the standing crops, as the possession of the land was taken on 24.2.1988, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.2.1989 and the award was pronounced on 5.8.1991. The evidence led by the land owners to that effect was not considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that regarding valuation of the land, there is no evidence on record. Sale deed (Ex. A1) pertains to a small plot measuring 6 biswas, which is part of the abadi area. The land is located at far off place from the abadi. There is no site plan on record to show the location of the plot pertaining to the sale deed vis-a-vis the acquired land. Unless the sale deed, relied upon by the land owners, pertains to a comparable piece of evidence, the same cannot be relied upon. As regards trees, standing on the acquired land, the submission was that in fact besides oral evidence, no material has been placed on record by the land owners to justify their claim. Mere oral evidence is not sufficient to award compensation for the trees, which allegedly were standing on the acquired land, whereas during survey, it was not found that any trees were standing on the acquired land, as no award for the same was given R.F.A. No. 573 of 1998 [ 3] by the Collector. Regarding severance and claim for loss on account of damage to the crops as well, the contention was the same, as the land owners had failed to lead any convincing evidence in support of the claim. As regards valuation of the super structure is concerned, the submission was that the award of the Collector is just and fair. The claim made by the land owners is not based on any convincing evidence, rather, it is exhorbitant. Construction of kacha kotha or installation of a tubewell prior to the acquisition will not cost ` 30,000/-, as is sought to be claimed. Mere for small difference in the valuation, this court should not interfere in the award. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, the land owners have not been able to justify their claim for enhancement by referring to any convincing evidence. The reliance is sought to be placed only on sale deed (Ex. A1) pertaining to small plot measuring 6 biswas. As per the recital in the sale deed, the land is located in the abadi area. Further, there is no site plan produced by the land owners on record showing the location of the plot in question vis-a-vis the acquired land. Unless it is established on record that the land pertaining to the sale deed is comparative in location, it would not be safe to place reliance thereupon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the land. Similarly, as regards claim of compensation for trees allegedly standing on the acquired land, for severance and also for damage to the crops standing on the acquired land is concerned, there is no issue framed by the learned court below on that account and the evidence led by the land owners also is merely oral. No supporting documentary or independent evidence has been produced on record. In the absence of trust worthy evidence, this court is not in a position to opine that the learned court below has committed any illegality in not awarding compensation to the land owners on account of the trees allegedly standing on the acquired land, severance or damages to the crops. As regards compensation on account of kotha and tubewell existing on the acquired land is concerned, normally this court awards enhancement to the tune of 25% of the value as assessed by the Collector by applying a thumb rule. However, considering the fact that assessment of compensation for that by the Collector is ` 5,097/- and 25% thereof would be ` 1774.25. Considering the amount to be meagre, as the land owners may have to spend even more amount in getting that in execution, I do not find any reason to interfere even with that part of the award of the learned court below. R.F.A. No. 573 of 1998 [ 4] Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 14, 2010 mk