R. F. A No. 67 of 1997 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 15.5.2009 1. RFA No. 67 of 1997 (O&M) Dalip Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 2. RFA No. 699 of 1997 (O&M) Balwant Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State of Punjab and another ... Respondents 3. RFA No. 700 of 1997 (O&M) Naib Singh and others ..... Appellants vs State and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the appellant (s). Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 67, 699 and 700 of 1997, filed by the landowners for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, as these arise out of the same acquisition. In RFA No. 67 of 1997, the landowner has also prayed for grant of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 67 of 1997. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 26.12.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Kaurianwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, for construction of Kaurianwali Link Drain. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 13.7.1988 assessed the market value at Rs. 16,000/- per acre for chahi kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the appellants filed R. F. A No. 67 of 1997 2 objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 20.9.1994 while upholding the award of the Collector dismissed the reference. It is this award which is under challenge before this court in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence led by the appellants on record. The compensation awarded by the Collector was not just and fair. The sale-deeds, Ex. A7 to A12 and A15 were produced which clearly established that not only after but even prior to the acquisition of the land, the value of the land in the vicinity was much more than what was determined by the Collector. Those have been totally ignored. In RFA No. 67 of 1997, additional contention was that the compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land was not paid even though it was proved on record that trees were being uprooted by the staff of the Drainage Department with the help of machines. This fact clearly established that there were trees standing on the acquired land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale-deeds relied upon by the landowners are totally irrelevant. In fact all other landowners were satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, except the appellants in these appeals as none else has filed any appeal. The sale-deeds produced by them are not relevant as these were registered either much prior to the date of acquisition or much later. The location was also not comparable. The land in question was not cultivable. There is no evidence regarding the existence of the trees on the acquired land which could entitle the appellant in RFA No. 67 of 1997 to claim compensation for acquisition of the tress standing on the acquired land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as the value of the land is concerned, considering the evidence produced by the appellants on record which is in the form of sale- deeds, Ex. A7 to A12 and A15, I do not find that any case for enhancement of compensation is made out. The sale-deed, Ex. A7 and A8 were registered way back in the year 1981, whereas the sale-deed Ex. A9 to A12 and Ex.A15 were registered from 1988 to 1991. The location thereof is not pointed out on any site plan, in the absence of which these cannot be said to R. F. A No. 67 of 1997 3 be instances of comparable quality of land which could be relevant for the determination of fair value of the acquired land. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the award as far as the value of the acquired land is concerned. In so far as the compensation on account of trees is concerned, the claim of the appellant in RFA No. 67 of 1997 was that there were 64 Safeda trees existing on the acquired land. In the evidence, the appellant produced his representation given to SDO (Drain) Fazilka, regarding payment of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. In addition to that he has produced on record photographs, Ex. A3 to A6, showing that trees were being uprooted by the staff of the Drainage Department with the help of machines. No other landowner has claimed compensation for the trees standing on the acquired land. As there is some material to show that trees were existing which were uprooted by the respondent, as a guess work and applying thumb rule to the same, in my opinion, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable amount of compensation which the appellant in RFA No. 67 of 1997 is entitled to be paid on that account. The appellant is also entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act thereon. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with regard to enhancement of value of acquired land, however, appeal bearing RFA No. 67 of 1997 is allowed partly in the manner indicated above. 15.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge