R.F.A. No. 3808 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.7.2010 R.F.A. No. 3808 of 2008 State of Haryana .... Appellant Versus Kehar Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan and Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing No. 3808 to 3813, 3845 to 3861, 3953, 4466 to 4488, 5297 of 2008, 106 to 108, 1559, 1560, 1577 to 1589, 2830, 4570, 4571 of 2009 and cross objections bearing No. 101-CI of 2009, 75-CI of 2010 , as the same arise out of a common award of the learned court below. In the appeals and cross-objections filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, it is seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 3808 of 2008. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana acquired 7.69 acres of land, situated in village Dhakal, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, vide notification dated 28.10.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for the purpose of construction of New Sinsar Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 24.11.2005, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 28.3.2006, assessed the compensation @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of land. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the land owners on record in the form of award announced by the Collector pertaining to the land of village R.F.A. No. 3808 of 2008 2 Dhakal, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind where for the acquisition carried out nearly at the same time, compensation of ` 8,00,000/- per acre was granted. It was further submitted that the present case is covered by the principles as followed in RFA No. 2929 of 2008, State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others decided on 14.5.2010. The land is near to Narwana and as per the aforesaid case its value is more. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the compensation, as was granted by the Collector on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government was already much more than the value of the land in the area. The same did not call for any enhancement. However, still without there being any material on record, the learned court below has awarded ` 7,00,000/- per acre as compensation as against ` 5,00,000/- per acre assessed by the Collector. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. What is not in dispute in the present case is that no sale deed was produced on record by the land owners to show that market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act was much more than the award of the Collector. As far as reliance on award (Ex. P1) is concerned, the same is totally mis-placed for the reason that there is no site plan on record to show the location of the land pertaining to village Dhakal and the acquired land. In the absence thereof, no reliance could possibly be placed thereon. It is not in dispute that acquisition in the present case was for construction of New Sinsar Minor, which necessarily bifurcates the land. The level of the distributory is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges, if any, are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route to reach other part of the land. On that account, in my opinion, the land owners deserve to be compensated. The learned court below in the present case has increased the value of land from ` 5,00,000/- per acre to ` 7,00,000/- per acre. It cannot be disputed that assessment of value of the land in acquisition cases cannot be by way of mathematical exactitude. Some guess work is always applied. In the present case, in my opinion, there are two factors, which justify the award of the learned court below, namely, that award of the Collector is in consonance with the instructions of the government dated 28.4.2005. After a gap of two years, the value was increased to ` 8,00,000/- per acre. The award in the present case is just six months R.F.A. No. 3808 of 2008 3 prior to the revision of the instructions, though after the issuance of the earlier instructions on 28.4.2005. Further on account of severance also, the land owners are also entitled to some compensation, as the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of construction of a minor. If both the factors are considered, the increase granted by the learned court below from ` 5,00,000/- per acre to ` 7,00,000/- per acre can neither be said to be on higher side nor on the lower side. For the reasons mentioned above, the award of the learned court below does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners as well as the State are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.7.2010 reema