R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 23,2010 (1) RFA No. 435 of 1994 (O&M) Phole (deceased) through his LRs and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (2) RFA No. 436 of 1994 (O&M) Bhagta alias Bhagat Singh (deceased) through LRs .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (3) RFA No. 437 of 1994 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh and another .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (4) RFA No. 438 of 1994 (O&M) Mastu alias Mastan Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (5) RFA No. 439 of 1994 (O&M) Bakshish Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 2] (6) RFA No. 493 of 1994 (O&M) Mohinder Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (7) RFA No. 494 of 1994 (O&M) Sapooran Singh @ Spura through LRs and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (8) RFA No. 648 of 1994 (O&M) Rajinder Kaur .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (9) RFA No. 662 of 1994 (O&M) Ajaib Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (10) RFA No. 717 of 1994 (O&M) Joginder Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (11) RFA No. 718 of 1994 (O&M) Ujjagar Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 3] (12) RFA No. 753 of 1994 (O&M) Surmukh Singh (deceased) through LR .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (13) RFA No. 761 of 1994 (O&M) Jasminder Singh and others .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (14) RFA No. 936 of 1994 (O&M) Amarnath and others .....Appellants Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent (15) RFA No. 937 of 1994 (O&M) Karnail Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (16) RFA No. 946 of 1994 (O&M) Nasib Singh (deceased) through LRs and another .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 4] (17) RFA No. 960 of 1994 (O&M) Bhajan Singh and another .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (18) RFA No. 1446 of 1994 (O&M) Smt. Sito (deceased) through LRs and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (19) RFA No. 945 of 1995 (O&M) Pritam Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent (20) RFA No. 1670 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Nasib Singh and another .....Respondents (21) RFA No. 1671 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Sapooran Singh Alias Spura and others .....Respondents (22) RFA No. 1672 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 5] (23) RFA No. 1673 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Mahatam Singh and another .....Respondents (24) RFA No. 1674 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Ujagar Singh and others .....Respondents (25) RFA No. 1675 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Ajaib Singh and another .....Respondents (26) RFA No. 1676 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Haridal Singh and others .....Respondents (27) RFA No. 1677 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Pritam Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 6] (28) RFA No. 1678 of 1996 (O&M) The State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Bhajan Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 28 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 18/19.3.1988, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land situated in village Mehroli, Hadbast no. 143, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was acquired for the purpose of construction of High Level Distributory. The same was followed by notification dated 4.8..1988, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 65,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land; ` 59,000/- per acre for Barani kind of land and ` 30,000/- 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 @ ` 80,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land. However, some of the references filed by the land owners were dismissed by the learned court below upholding the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in not considering the agreement dated 27.6.1986 arrived at between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and the members of the Action Committee, whereby Chahi kind of land was evaluated @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. Reliance was placed upon The State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., (1990-1) PLR R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 7] 278. Correspondingly, the prayer was for increase in the compensation assessed for Barani and Gair Mumkin kind of land. For that, the submission was that once the value of Chahi kind of land has been assessed @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre, a cut of 20% each would be required for Barani and Gair Mumkin kind of land and compensation be assessed accordingly. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the land owners relied upon a judgment of this Court, in R.F.A. No. 1290 of 1994—Ranjit Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, decided on 26.11.2008. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below is more than what the land owners deserved. The agreement or settlement with any authority in the State does not have any evidentiary value in the court, as the value of land is required to be determined on the basis of consideration paid by a willing buyer to a willing purchaser. The amount, as assessed by the Collector, is just and fair. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners, as far as value of Chahi kind of land is concerned. The settlement of the land owners with the State regarding valuation of the land acquired for SYL Canal was referred to and relied upon by this Court in various judgments for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Reference can be made to State of Punjab and others v. Khushal Singh etc., 1989(2) PLR 499; State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., 1990(1) PLR 278 and RFA No. 3010 of 1992—Prem Singh v. The State of Punjab, decided on 17.12.2008. Considering the consistent view of this court, in my opinion, for Chahi kind of land, the value thereof can very well be assessed @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. As far as contention of learned counsel for the land owners for increase in the value of Barani and Gair Mumkin kind of land in the same proportion or by applying a cut therein is concerned, I do not find any justification for that, as in the settlement between the land owners and the State, on which reliance is placed upon, there is no such categorisation made. Once the basis for assessment of compensation is the settlement between the parties, I do not find any reason to apply any other principle for the purpose of assessment of compensation. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed and those of the land owners are allowed while assessing the compensation for Chahi kind of land @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits available to them under the Act. R.F.A. No. 435 of 1994 [ 8] In R.F.A. No. 945 of 1995, Harbax Singh filed an application as legal representatives of Pritam Singh (appellant No. 1) and Smt. Setto (appellant No. 6) by alleging that he was given the property in question by appellant No. 1 under family settlement, whereas appellant No. 6 had executed a Will in favour of the applicant. On 4.12.2009, this Court ordered that the applicant can be impleaded as legal representative of appellants No. 1 and 6 only after giving opportunity of hearing to the natural legal heirs of the deceased appellants. However, as the addresses of the legal heirs of appellants No. 1 and 6 were not furnished, their services could not be completed. Therefore, while disposing of the appeals, this court leaves this point open. The issue regarding entitlement of compensation on account of death of Pritam Singh and Smt. Setto shall be considered by the Executing Court in execution proceedings. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge July 23 ,2010 mk