RFA No. 4665 of 1998 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: March 26 ,2009 1. R.F.A. No. 4665 of 1998 Mandir Shri Paras Nath and another .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 4666 of 1998 Ajit Singh and another .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 4667 of 1998 Surjit Singh .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 4. R.F.A. No. 4668 of 1998 Tarsem Chand (deceased) through LRs and another .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 5. R.F.A. No. 4669 of 1998 Kapoor Chand .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 6. R.F.A. No. 4670 of 1998 Tehal Singh and another .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 7. R.F.A. No. 4671 of 1998 Mohinder Pal and others .. Appellants vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 8. R.F.A. No. 4672 of 1998 Piaro Devi .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents RFA No. 4665 of 1998 [2] 9. R.F.A. No. 4673 of 1998 Ajit Singh .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 10. R.F.A. No. 4674 of 1998 Bimal Kumar Jain .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 11. R.F.A. No. 4675 of 1998 Gurdeep Singh alias Dalip Singh .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 12. R.F.A. No. 1629 of 1999 Bhag Singh .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 13. R.F.A. No. 1630 of 1999 Kesho Ram .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 14. R.F.A. No. 1631 of 1999 Pritpal Singh .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 15. R.F.A. No. 1813 of 1999 Shar Chand .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents 16. R.F.A. No. 1814 of 1999 Wazinder Pal Singh .. Appellant vs State of Punjab and others ... Respondents RFA No. 4665 of 1998 [3] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Garg and Mr. Rajiv Mittal, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for Mr. G. S. Harike, Advocate for Punjab Mandi Board. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 16 appeals arising out of the same acquisition. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from RFA No. 4665 of 1998. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 3.4.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired land measuring 51 acres, 2 kanals and 9 marlas, situated in the revenue estates of Samana and Malkana for setting up New Anaj Mandi, Samana. The same was followed by notification dated 5.8.1991, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 19.8.1993, determined the value of chahi and Gair Mumkin land @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre; Rs. 4,09,912/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Abadkari and Rs. 24,455/- per acre for Barani kind of land. The land owners filed objections, which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed before it assessed the market value of Chahi and Gair Mumkin land @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre and upheld the award of Gair Mumkin Abadkari land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that sale deeds (Ex. P23 and Ex. P24) should be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land in its entirety, considering the fact that the same is located within the municipal limits, which is situated on Patiala- Bhawanigarh Road. It adjoins Jain Mohalla, Khatri Mohalla and Imamgarh colony. The abadi of Samana town was expanding towards the acquired land. Many shops, industries and housing colonies were situated near and around the acquired land. There was an octroi post just opposite the acquired land. The learned court below, while assessing the value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre by doubling the amount, as was awarded by the Collector, has not given any reason to reject the contentions raised by the land owners to the effect that the entire land should have been valued at the same rate, considering the fact that it was located within the RFA No. 4665 of 1998 [4] municipal limits. He further submitted that genuineness of sale deeds (Ex. P23 and Ex. P24), which were forming part of the acquired land could not possibly be disputed, as the same were registered much prior to the acquisition of land. The learned court below, after granting 12% increase thereon, had determined the average value thereof at Rs. 5,84,701/- per acre and even if a cut was required to be applied, the same should not be more than 1/4th or 1/3rd. Reliance was placed upon Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, 1988 LACC 491 and Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam, 1992 LACC 314. It was further submitted that as the left over land of the land owners became useless and inaccessible, the land owners were entitled to compensation on account of severance. The submission is that the compensation awarded on account of super structure and the tubewells on the acquired land is also on the lower side. On 20.3.2009, when the arguments were heard, learned counsel for the State could not raise any argument, as he did not have any brief. Learned counsel for Mandi Board sought adjournment stating that the arguing counsel was out of station. His request was not considered, in view of the fact that part arguments in the case were heard earlier and hearing was to be concluded. Judgment was reserved on 20.3.2009. Faced with this situation, this court did not have any other option but to peruse the record and consider the same in view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Even the fact that the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P23 and Ex. P24) is forming part of the acquired land is also not in dispute. Though the land owners in the present case had produced on record as many as 16 sale deeds, but the land pertaining to all the sale deeds has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. A perusal of the details of sale deeds, as is noticed in paragraph 26 of the impugned award, shows that the same is for small plots ranging from 150 square yards to 720 square yards, located in Samana or Malkhana Patti. The round figure of the area of the plots suggests that the same may be forming part of a developed colony. As far as sale deeds (Ex. P23 and Ex. P24) is concerned, the area dealt with therein is nearly 4 marlas and 6 marlas respectively, which was sold for a consideration of Rs. 5,400/- and Rs. 8,100/- respectively, at an average price of Rs. 2,16,000/- per acre. Both were registered on the same date, i.e., 8.7.1982. If increase even @ 12% per annum is granted thereon for the time gap of 9 years, the average value per acre thereof comes out to RFA No. 4665 of 1998 [5] Rs. 4,49,300/-. The learned court below has taken that value after grant of increase at Rs. 5,84,701/-, which is incorrect. From a perusal of the site plan on record and locating therein the khasra numbers pertaining to sale deeds (Ex. P23 and Ex. P24), it was found that the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds is situated at a crossing of two roads. Considering the aforesaid fact and also that the area dealt with therein was quite small, measuring 4 marlas and 6 marlas only, even if a cut of 50% is applied thereon, the value of the acquired land comes out to Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre approximately. The same value has been assessed by the learned court below, though for arriving at the said conclusion, a different method has been adopted. The learned court below had rightly done away with the categorisation of land as Chahi, Gair Mumkin and Barani, the same having urban potential. However, on a small portion of land, where some abadi was already existing, the award of the Collector granting compensation at Rs. 4,09,912/- per acre was upheld. Nothing could be pointed out on record to suggest that the value so assessed by the Collector called for any interference. It is not in dispute that certain constructions are existing on the land, which was described as Gair Mumkin abadi, as number of persons have been granted compensation for the structures existing thereon. No fault can be found with the assessment of the value of other piece of land, which was lying vacant and the entire land cannot possibly be assessed at the same rate. As far as grant of damages on account of severance is concerned, the learned court below has observed that no evidence has been led by the land owners to prove that left over land had become totally useless and inaccessible and in the absence thereof, the land owners were not entitled to any compensation on account of severance. Regarding super structure and the valuation of tubewells existing on the acquired land is concerned, the learned court below has already enhanced the compensation considering the earlier judgments of this Court, as it is always a rough estimate on the basis of which the compensation payable for the super structure or tubewells is assessed as the calculation cannot be made with minute details. I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the learned court below even on that account. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge March 26, 2009 mk RFA No. 4665 of 1998 [6]