R.F.A. No. 1970 of 1987 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1970 of 1987 Date of decision: September 19 ,2008 Daya Chand alias Daya Nand .. Appellant v. The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Girotra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant is in appeal appeal before this Court against the award dated 14.5.1987, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak for enhancement of compensation awarded to him on account of acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 18.90 acres situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak was acquired vide notification dated 13.3.1984 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'). The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 27.4.1984. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 20,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi land; Rs. 15,000/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for banjar qadim land. The land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, vide award dated 14.5.1987 determined the value of the land at Rs. 25,000/- per acre for nehri/chahi land and Rs. 20,000/- per acre for other land. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the value of the land determined by the learned Court below is not in consonance with the evidence led by the land owner on record, whereas learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of the land determined by the learned Court below, in fact, deserves to be reduced as reliance has been placed upon a single sale transaction which was after the acquisition of the land. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. R.F.A. No. 1970 of 1987 [2] Learned counsel for the parties have not pointed out as to whether any other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is either pending or decided by this Court. Out of the evidence produced by the appellant, sale deed (Ex. P.1) was rejected for the reason that the same pertained to the land in Village Asandha. Similar was the position with regard to sale deed (Ex. P.W.4/1) where the sale was for land pertaining to village Ismaila. Even otherwise, the sale deed was executed on 20.5.1986, whereas the acquisition was vide notification dated 13.3.1984. Sale deed (Ex. P.W.3/1) was also executed on 29.7.1986 pertaining to Village Asandha and was also rejected by the learned Court below. Reliance was placed upon sale deed (Ex.P.2) for sale of land measuring 15 kanals 4 marlas situated in Village Bhaproda at an average price of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Though the date of sale was 5.6.1984, more than two months after the date of notification, but still the same being the only evidence on record, the genuineness of which was not doubted by the State, the value of the land was determined relying thereon. The State is also not aggrieved against the award of the learned Court below. As the market value of the land has been determined relying upon sale deed (Ex.P.2) considering which no further enhancement is possible. Accordingly, the claim for further enhancement of compensation is dismissed. As regards severance also, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant to increase the percentage thereof for the reason that no evidence has been placed on record in the form of site plan to show as to how the land of the appellant has been bifurcated and in what manner, it has become disadvantageous for him to make proper use of the land. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 19 , 2008 mk