R.F.A. No. 1878 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) R.F.A. No. 1878 of 1988 Date of decision: September 17, 2008 Ranjodh Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab .. Respondent (1) R.F.A. No. 1879 of 1988 Updeshpal Singh .. Appellant v. State of Punjab .. Responden (3) R.F.A. No. 1880 of 1988 Mohinder Singh and others .. Appellant v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned three appeals as the same arise out of a common acquisition. However, the facts have been taken from R.F.A. No.1878 of 1988. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 3.69 acres situated in Village Nanoki, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala was acquired vide notification dated 23.6.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Sirhind Chow. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 10,000/ - per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Patiala, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. It is against this award of R.F.A. No. 1878 of 1988 [2] the learned Court below that the appellants have approached this Court for enhancement in the compensation for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the value of the land assessed by the Court below is not in conformity with the evidence led by the appellants on record. He has referred to Ex. P.2 and P.3 pertaining to the sale instances in Village Chaswal vide which land measuring 10 biswas was sold @ Rs. 22,500/- on 13.11.1981 vide sale deed Ex. P.2 and land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas was sold on 12.1.1982 @ Rs. 42,000/- per acre vide sale deed Ex.P.3. The submission is that if the aforesaid sale deeds are considered the assessment of the value of the land would require revision. Further the claim is on account of severance which, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, has wrongly been rejected. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the award of the learned Court below is based on proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the appellants on record. In fact, in the absence of any evidence worth consideration, no enhancement as such was possible and the award of the Collector was required to be upheld which has been done by the learned Court below. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the award shows that all what had been produced by the appellants on record was two sale deeds (Ex.P.2 and P.3), the details of which have already been referred to above. The land forming part of these sale deeds was situated in Village Chaswal, whereas the acquired land was part of Village Nanoki. It is admitted fact on record that there was no sale instance of Village Nanoki. The claim set up by the appellants on the basis of sale instances (Ex.P.2 and P.3) was rejected by the learned Court below for the reason that the land belonging to Village Chaswal was not in the vicinity of the acquired land, as even the village was far off from the village to which the land in question belonged. In this view of the matter, no illegality was committed by the learned Court below in rejecting the evidence led by the appellants. In the absence of any other evidence on record, the learned Court below did not have any option but to uphold the award of the Collector. As regards the claim of severance is concerned, on this count also except the oral statements, nothing was produced on record to show how the land has been divided and consequently it had become disadvantageous for the appellants to make proper use of the land. In the absence of any material evidence to that effect on record, the learned Court below did not commit any illegality even on this count while rejecting the claim of the appellants. R.F.A. No. 1878 of 1988 [3] For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.9.2008 mk