R.F.A. No. 2367 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2367 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.2.2011 Jasbir Singh Grewal and others .. Appellants v. Land Acquisition Collector and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. N. Raina and Mr. H. S. Bhullar, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2367 of 1989, 598 of 1990 and 2217 of 1994, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 2367 of 1989. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 9.9.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab sought to acquire 3 bighas and 11 biswas of land falling within the revenue estate of Mangwal and 65 kanals and 9 marlas falling in the revenue estate of Sangrur for setting up of Insecticide Factory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 21.2.1984, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 70,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land R.F.A. No. 2367 of 1989 [2] owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 30/- per square yard upto the depth of 50 yards, whereas for the remaining land the award of the Collector was upheld. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land was strategically located on main Sangrur-Patiala road quite close to the Cantonment. It was abutting the municipal boundaries of Sangrur. It had great potential for being developed as residential area. Public school was already located in the vicinity. The evidence produced on record by the land owners in the form of sale deeds have not been considered. The value shown therein was much more than what has been assessed by the learned court below. The land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A3), which was registered on 22.6.1981 pertaining to 1,000 square yards @ ` 25/- per square yard was forming part of the acquired land. It was registered more than two years prior to the acquisition. The genuineness thereof is not in doubt. It is a matter of common knowledge that people usually get the sale deeds registered showing lesser value to avoid payment of stamp duty. None of the sale deeds produced by the State was relevant. The learned court below should have done away with the belting system. In fact, the entire land deserves to be assessed at the same rate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while not disputing the fact that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A3) was forming part of the acquired land submitted that the sale deeds produced by the State are also required to be considered for the reason that there is huge variation in the value shown therein as compared to the sale deeds produced by the State. He submitted that the land being outside the municipal limits was not as such located strategically. It did not have potentiality for being developed as residential or commercial in near future. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Site plan (Ex. AW5/1) shows the location of the acquired land. The fact that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A3) was forming part of the acquired land is not in dispute. It was a transaction for 1,000 square yards of land registered on 22.6.1981 @ ` 25/- per square yard. Considering the area of total acquired land, the aforesaid transaction cannot be said to be R.F.A. No. 2367 of 1989 [3] for a small piece of land. The aforesaid sale deed was registered more than two years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. For the time gap, in my opinion, ` 5/- per square yard deserves to be added in the sale consideration shown in the aforesaid sale deed. The aforesaid plot was abutting the road, hence, the land owners, whose land is located upto the depth of one acre from the main road, can be awarded compensation @ ` 30/- per square yard. Ordered accordingly. The land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. As far as the land located beyond that is concerned, in my opinion, considering the value assessed for the land located on the main road and applying a thumb rule, the land located beyond one acre can very well be assessed @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available to them under the Act on the aforesaid amount of compensation assessed. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 –Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. R.F.A. No. 2367 of 1989 [4] (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 14.2.2011 mk