R. F. A No. 1687 of 1990 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1687 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.11.2008 Atma Ram (deceased) through LRs. and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. O. P. Sharda, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 31.3.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired the land for construction of Godown for HAFED in the area of Village Ratta Khera, just adjoining the revenue estate of Safidon Town. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 31.7.1989 assessed the market value at Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide award dated 2.4.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 70,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has failed to assess the fair value of the acquired land which was situated within the municipal limits of Safidon and was having a great future potential. There were factories in the vicinity of the acquired land. He further submitted that the learned court below has not awarded any compensation to the appellants on account of trees standing on the acquired land. R. F. A No. 1687 of 1990 (2) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the landowners in the present case placed on record, Ex. P-1, copy of the mutation and Ex. P-2 copy of sale deed dated 4.12.1989. He submitted that both these documents as such cannot be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. However, still even considering the mutation which was entered into on the basis of sale-deed executed on 13.9.1989 nearly six months after the acquisition, the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 70,000/- per acre and even on account of severance, additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- was also granted. According to him, as per his knowledge no appeal has been filed by the State for reduction in compensation awarded by the learned court below. However, in any case, the evidence produced on record is not sufficient to make out a case for further increase. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the record shows that no sale-deed showing the value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition was produced. The sale-deed which was produced on record is dated 4.12.1989, Ex. P-2, which was registered nearly nine months after the date of acquisition. Not only this, even the land forming part thereof has not been shown in any of the site plan produced on record which could enable the court to adjudge the comparability of the land vis-a-vis the acquired land. Ex. P-1, which has been relied upon by the learned court below for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land was also merely a mutation which as such could not be considered but as the State has not filed any appeal, no reduction in the compensation can be made. As the appellants have not placed on record any other material showing the value of the acquired land, they are not entitled to any further increase in the compensation. As far as claim regarding trees is concerned, in the petition under Section 18 of the Act, it was claimed that there were two Shisham and two Eucalyptus Trees standing on the acquired land. However, at the time of oral statement in the court, it was stated that two Shisham and 10-12 Eucalyptus trees were standing on the acquired land. The existence of trees has not come on record in any survey conducted by the State at the time of R. F. A No. 1687 of 1990 (3) acquisition of land. The discrepancy in the statement of the landowners shows that the claim does not inspire confidence. In view of this, I do not find that even claim on that account is tenable. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. 20.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge