RFA No.576 of 1990 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.576 of 1990 Date of Decision: 28.3.2008 The State of Punjab ..Appellant. Vs. Tarsem Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Mr.P.C.Goel, Sr.DAG Punjab, for the State-appellant. None for the respondents. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This order shall dispose of RFA Nos.576, 577, 578 and 579 of 1990 as there is common question of law and facts involved therein. The facts have been taken from RFA No.576 of 1990. These appeals have been filed by the State of Punjab against the order of District Judge, Ropar whereby compensation has been enhanced from Rs.1,40,000/- per acre to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for `Gair Mumkin Abadi' land and Rs.40,000/- per acre to Rs.50,000/- per acre for `Gair Mumkin' other kind of land. The land of the respondents was acquired under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') published in the Govt. Gazette on 3.10.1985 and 9.10.1985 respectively for construction of Satluj Yamuna Link canal. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,40,000/- per acre for `Gair Mumkin Abadi' and Rs.40,000/- per acre for `Gair Mumkin' another land. Dissatisfied with the RFA No.576 of 1990 -2 - award of the Collector, the land owners filed objection under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the Civil Court at Ropar. In the objections, the respondents had claimed that their land is situated in village Kotla Nihang, Tehsil and District Rupnagar and has been acquired for the construction of Satluj Yamuna Link canal. It was claimed that Land Acquisition Collector has lost sight of the fact that the land had great potential value at the time of its acquisition, which adjoins historical Gurdwara known as Bhatha Sahib. It was further claimed that number of residential houses have come up along with land and there is now thickly populated Abadi. Construction activity of the residential houses as well as shops was extending towards the acquired land and even beyond it. It was further claimed that Anaj Mandi/ Fruit Mandi is hardly at a distance of 50 yards from the acquired land. A link road which branches off from the main road leading from Chandigarh to Ropar, passes through the acquired land. It was further claimed that the acquired land adjoins the municipal limits of Ropar town, therefore, the same was being used for construction of residential houses as well as for the commercial shops at the time of acquisition. In the written statement, the appellant herein denied the averments made in the claim petition/objections and asserted that fair compensation has already been paid. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the land Acquisition Collector is inadequate. If so, to what extent ? OPP. 2.Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation. If so, to what effect ? OPP. 3. Relief. RFA No.576 of 1990 -3 - While dealing with the issues No.1 and 2 jointly, the District Judge, Ropar assessed the market value @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for `Gair Mumkin Abadi' land and Rs.50,000/- per acre for `Gair Mumkin' other kind of land. On the basis of decision rendered in the main Land Reference No.128 of 28.4.1988 Pritam Singh Vs. The State of Punjab in which the sale instances relied upon by both the parties were extensively considered. It was noticed by the Court below that for the very reason that the sale instances have already been considered in the main reference counsel, for the parties did not refer to those sale instances. The Court below while relying upon the decision in earlier case of Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and also a decision rendered in the case of Rahmat Ullah Versus State of U.P. 1985 (2) All India Land Law Reporter 563 held that the acquired land carries the same purpose and is of same quality then compensation should be paid at the same rate. Sh.P.C.Goel, Sr.DAG Punjab could not find fault with the decision of the Court below as the compensation that has been enhanced, is only Rs.10,000/- per acre. Nothing has been highlighted in the grounds of appeal as well by the appellant, therefore, in view of discussion herein above, all the four appeals being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 28.3.2008 Judge Meenu