RFA No. 2539 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2539 of 1990 Date of decision: 23.10.2009 Siri Ram ....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the award dated 16.8.1990 passed by the learned Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While submitting the statement under Section 19 of the Act, full area of the acquired land was not mentioned. Appellant in order to prove that his land stood acquired, examined Jai Pal, Patwari, as PW5, who admitted that the land measuring 12 bighas 9 biswas of the appellant was acquired. He had 1/12th share in the holdings. The details of the land belonging to the appellant, which stood acquired are khewat No. 61/53, khasra No. 12090/745 (0-14) in which the appellant had 1/12th share, khwat No. 62, khatono No. 156-159, khasra No. 6026 measuring 10 bighas 13 biswas, khasra No. 12088/6045 (0-17), khasra No. 12089/6045 (1-0), khasra No. 12095/6045 measuring 1 bighas 3 biswas, khasra No. 6047 measuring 4 bighas 8 biswas, khasra No. 6051 measuring 8 bighas 6 biswas, khasra No. 12087/6062 measuring 2 bighas 5 biswas, khasra No. 6032 measuring 4 bighas 5 biswas, RFA No. 2539 of 1990 -2- khasra No. 6041 measuring 4 bihgas 11 biswas, khasra No. 6046 measuring 6 bighas 4 biswas, khasra No. 6052 measuring measuring 5 bighas 15 biswas, khasra No. 12084/6031 measuring 2 bighas 9 biswas, khasra No. 12085/6031 measuring 1 bighas 9 biswas, khasra No. 6032 measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas, khasra No. 6042 measuring 4 bighas 15 biswas, khasra No. 6049 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas, total land measuring 61 bighas 18 biswas (16 kittas). The land was acquired for setting up of Urban Estate, Karnal. The learned Court in view of the fact, that as per the earlier award compensation had already been assessed, awarded compensation @ Rs.22/- per square yard for additional land, which was left out while filing statement under Section 19 of the Act. The assessment of the market value was not challenged. The only plea taken by the appellant was, that as the award was being passed qua the additional land now, he be granted additional compensation in view of the subsequent orders passed regarding compensation for the acquired land. This plea of the appellant was rejected by the learned Reference Court on the ground that for the purposes of determining the market value, the date to be taken is the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court was further pleased to hold, that the assessment of the market value had already been made, therefore, even for the additional land, which was acquired vide same notification, the same compensation could be allowed. The learned Reference Court granted compensation @ Rs.22/- per square yard along with solatium @ 30% and other statutory benefits under the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the learned Reference Court committed an error in not granting the compensation payable as on the date of passing of award as admittedly for want of RFA No. 2539 of 1990 -3- statement under Section 19 of the Act part of the land of the appellant was not included and award qua said land was made on a subsequent date, when the market value of the land was much higher. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The learned Reference Court was right in holding that the market value was to be assessed as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case the award passed by the Collector was qua the total land. It was only the learned Reference Court, which had not determined the compensation payable for want of statement under Section 19 of the Act. It was on account of remand by this Court that the parties were permitted to lead evidence to prove the acquisition. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant would be entitled to higher compensation than granted to his co-owners and other land owners, as the land was acquired under the same notification. The order passed does not suffer from any illegality, which may call for any interference by this Court in appeal. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 23, 2009 R.S.