R. F. A. No. 921 of 1982 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 921 of 1982 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.8.2008 Chander ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The claimant is in appeal before this court against the award of learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak dated 31.3.1982 where the award of Land Acquisition Collector regarding valuation of land was upheld and no enhancement as such was directed. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification No. 540/North/8691/65 dated 1-2-1966 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), land measuring 18.59 acres situated in Revenue Estate of Village Jassia was acquired by the State for public purpose namely for construction of Jassia drain. This was followed by the Collector vide award dated 12.1.1978 vide which the compensation was awarded at the following rates:- Nahri Rs. 3,520/- per acre Barani Rs. 2,860/- per acre Gair mumkin johar Rs. 800/- per acre G. M. Raasta Rs. 1,375/- per acre B. M. Dahna Rs. 3,520/- per acre The learned court below while considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was correct and no enhancement as such was required. No one has appeared for the appellant. A perusal of the record shows that the enhancement in compensation is sought by relying upon the evidence led before the court R. F. A. No. 921 of 1982 2 below which according to the appellant had been ignored. The claimant relied upon various sale-deeds in the form of evidence led by producing the same as Ex. P-1, P-4 to P6, which are summarised as under:- Ex. No. Area and kind of sold K-M Total amount Date of sale Price per acre Distance from acquired land P-1 36-19 Rs. 28000 14.3.72 Rs. 6062/- 330/513 yards P-4 40-11 Rs. 37500 30.5.70 Rs. 7398/- Adjoining P-4/1 42 sq. yards (plot) Rs. 844 02/07/66 Rs. 9680 P-5 40-0 Rs. 40000 18.6.70 Rs. 8000 1460 yards P-6 4-15 Rs. 10000 01/06/74 Rs.16842 No building number mentioned in this mutation As against this, the State in its evidence relied upon various mutations, Ex. R-4 to R-10 showing the value of the land to be quite less even as to what was granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. The details of which are as under :- Ex. No. Mutation no. Area and kind of land sold K-M Total price Date of sale Price per acre Distance from the acquired land (yards) R-4 4416 5-7 (Barani) 750 31.7.65 1121-50 2310 R-5 4434 8-10 (barani) 1500 04/02/66 1411-76 2325 R-6 4458 5-14 (nahri) 2000 13.5.66 2807-02 513 R-7 4459 5-15 (nahri) 2000 13.5.66 2782-61 513 R-8 4369 23-10 (barani) 7000 14.4.66 2382-98 1320 R-9 4486 11-4 (barani) 4000 07/08/65 2857-14 924 R-10 4529 2-9 (nahri) 600 06/01/67 1959-18 1151 Ex. R-3 is the site plan on record depicting the acquired land in green colour which is meant for construction of Jassia drain and the location of various sale-deeds produced by the appellant and also relied upon by the State. As far as evidence led by the State is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon for the reasons that it was only the mutations which have been placed on record as Ex. R-4 to R-10. Further the average thereof is less than even the Collector's award and further the distance from the land acquired. As far as the instances produced by the appellant/claimant are concerned, all the instances are after the acquisition of land. Exs. P-4/1 dated 2.7.1966, Ex. P-4 dated 30.5.70, Ex. P-5 dated 18.6.70, Ex. P-6 dated R. F. A. No. 921 of 1982 3 1.6.74, whereas the acquisition of land is vide notification dated 1.2.1966. A perusal of the site plan shows that sale-deeds Exs. P-1 to P-4 as relied upon by the claimant, which are quite near to the acquired land, are 4-6 years after the acquisition. By that time the availability of water had increased with the construction of the Jassia Drain. Accordingly, these sale-deeds cannot be said to be a reliable piece of evidence for determining the fair value of the land on the date of acquisition. As far as the instance of Ex. P-5 is concerned, the same is dated 18.6.1970 and the same is situated far off from the acquired land on the other side of the village abadi. As is evident from site plan Ex. R-3, the same is quite near to a pacca road and railway line. Accordingly the same also cannot be relied upon for the aforesaid reasons and also being more than four years after the date of acquisition. Similar is the position with regard to Ex. P-6 which being for a very small piece of land is dated 1.6.1974 i.e. more than eight years after the date of acquisition. The area under the acquisition in the present case is 18.59 acres. Accordingly even the sale-deed P-4/1 also cannot be relied upon as firstly the same is also after the date of acquisition being dated 2.7.1966, whereas the notification was issued on 1.2.1966, secondly, the area involved is 422 sq. yards. Such a small piece of land which is in the form of a plot in a developed area having streets on two sides thereof also cannot be relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation. In the absence of any material evidence led by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation and seeing the trend of rates even after 4-6 years after the acquisition of land and that too near the Jassia Drain on account of availability of water, in my view, the amount of compensation for acquisition of land as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the court below is just and fair except that the owners of land which has been categorised as Barani shall also get compensation @ Rs. 3,520/- per acre and all other statutory benefits as per the Act with costs. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 29.8.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge