R.F.A. No. 493 of 1988 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : September 03 ,2008 1. R. F. A. No. 493 of 1988 Labh Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others ... Appellants vs Union of India ... Respondent 2. R. F. A. No. 57 of 1984 Malkan Hasab Deh/Shamlat Deh, Malkan ..... Appellant vs Union of India .... Respondent 3. R. F. A No. 158 of 1984 Bakhshish Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India .... Respondent 4. R. F. A. No. 625 of 1984 The Union of India ..... Appellant vs Malkana Hasab Deh/Shamlat Deh, Malkhana ... Respondent 5. R. F. A. No. 626 of 1984 The Union of India ..... Appellant vs Bakhshish Singh (deceased) through LRs. and others .... Respondents 6. R. F. A. No. 627 of 1984 The Union of India ..... Appellant vs Labh Singh .... Respondent 7. R. F. A. No. 628 of 1984 (O&M) & X-Objections No. 7/C-1 of 2004 The Union of India ..... Appellant vs Nasib Kaur .... Respondent R.F.A. No. 493 of 1988 [2] 8. R. F. A. No. 455 of 1988 Rachan Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India and others .... Respondents 9. R. F. A. No. 1183 of 1988 Ajmer Singh and others ..... Appellants vs Union of India ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. Nos. 57 of 1984, 455 and 493 of 1988. Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 158 of 1984 and for the respondents in R.F.A. Nos. 625, 626, 627 and 628 of 1984. Mr. R. K. Dhiman and Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocates for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1183 of 1988. Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for Union of India in all the appeals. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 57 and 158 of 1984, 455, 493 and 1183 of 1988 and X-objections No. 7/C-1 of 2004 filed by the land-owners for enhancement of compensation and Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 625, 626, 627 and 628 of 1984 filed by Union of India for reduction of compensation awarded by the learned Court below, as common question of law and fact are involved. Briefly, the facts, as noticed from R.F.A. No. 493 of 1988, are that vide notification dated 12.10.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), 60.51 acres of land situated in Village Dhanas was acquired for the purpose of setting up of a shooting range. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- per acre. As the land owners were dissatisfied, they filed objections, which were referred to the learned District Judge, Chandigarh R.F.A. No. 493 of 1988 [3] for consideration. Vide award dated 5.12.1987, the learned court below enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre as against Rs. 60,000/- per acre granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. Still dissatisfied, the land owners as well as the State are in appeal before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that as such there is no evidence on record regarding any sale transaction having taken place in the area. Reliance was placed on award (Ex. P.2) for acquisition of land situated in Village Dadu Majra where for acquisition vide notification dated 25.11.1983, the amount was enhanced from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. Relying upon that award, the learned Court below granted compensation to the land owners in the present case also at Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. The submission is that the land owners in the present case are entitled to compensation at Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre keeping in view the judgment of this Court in L. P. A. No. 1207 of 1981- Jaswant Singh and others v. Union of India, decided on 22.9.1982, wherein it was opined that the entire land in the periphery of Chandigarh should be valued at the same rate. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India referred to the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 409 of 1984—Charan Singh and another v. Union of India, decided on 1.9.2003, where while considering the judgment in Jaswant Singh's case (supra) and also the mandate of Section 23(3) of the Act with special reference to the amendment applicable to the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, submitted that the ultimate use to which the land is put has no relevance for the purpose of determining of compensation as it is only the purpose for which the land was being used on the date of acquisition, which is required to be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value thereof. Even otherwise, in my opinion, the judgment referred to by learned counsel for the land owners is distinguishable on facts as the land under acquisition therein was forming part of Village Nizampur Burail, which is part of Sector 45, whereas the land in question in the present case is situated behind Sector 14 and a seasonal rivulet is in between. It has also R.F.A. No. 493 of 1988 [4] come on record as an admitted fact that the land in question is described in the revenue records as gair mumkin nadi. P. W.1 -Hazura Singh, the land owner, also admitted in his cross-examination that the land was previously part of a rivulet, but the rivulet was later on channelized. However, the fact that the land is low lying is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the land in question is just two furlongs from Village Dadu Majra. The land, which was under consideration for determination of fair value thereof in award Ex. P.2, and the land in question in the present set of appeals were situated close to each other with same potentiality, rather one negative factor attached with the land in question is that it is a low lying area which was earlier part of a rivulet. In award Ex.P.2, pertaining to acquisition of land of Village Dadu Majra vide notification dated 25.11.1983, the learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre as compensation. The same amount has been granted for acquisition in the present case, though the acquisition is nearly one year later but the quality of land is inferior. Keeping these facts in view, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre to the land owners. Accordingly, the appeals and cross-objections are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 03,2008 mk