RFA No. 2461 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.7.2010 (1) RFA No.2461 of 2002 (O&M) Jagveer Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (2) RFA No.2462 of 2002 (O&M) Dalip Kaur .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (3) RFA No.2463 of 2002 (O&M) Gurmander Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (4) RFA No.2464 of 2002 (O&M) Sukhjit Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (5) RFA No.2465 of 2002 (O&M) Gurdas Ram and others .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents RFA No. 2461 of 2002 [2] (6) RFA No.2466 of 2002 (O&M) Major Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (7) RFA No.2467 of 2002 (O&M) Baldev Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (8) RFA No.2468 of 2002 (O&M) Munshi Ram and others .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (9) RFA No.2473 of 2002 (O&M) Jaspaul Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (10) RFA No.2474 of 2002 (O&M) Chandi Ram .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (11) RFA No.2475 of 2002 (O&M) Harnek Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents RFA No. 2461 of 2002 [3] (12) RFA No.3051 of 2002 (O&M) Charan Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (13) RFA No.3052 of 2002 (O&M) Lekh Raj .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (14) RFA No.3053 of 2002 (O&M) Raj Kumar and others .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (15) RFA No.3240 of 2002 (O&M) Surinder Kumar .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (16) RFA No.4182 of 2003 (O&M) Sukhraj Singh .....Appellant Versus Punjab State and another .....Respondents (17) RFA No.4183 of 2003 (O&M) Wassu Ram .....Appellants Versus Punjab State and others .....Respondents RFA No. 2461 of 2002 [4] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. M. Munjal, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 17. appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2461 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 8/10.11.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired land, situated in the revenue estate of villages Puran Patti, Abhun and Jorki Kankarwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur for the construction of Abhun minor from RD No. 16000 off taking from RD 26732 R Jandwala Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the compensation as under: “Name of village Nature of land acquired Compensation .......................................................................................................................... Abhun Chahi/Nahri ` 1,40,000/- per acre Abhun Banjar ` 80,000/- per acre Puran Patti Chahi/Nahri ` 1,40,000/- per acre.” Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below enhanced the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the amount of compensation, as has been granted by the learned court below, is not just and fair considering the fact that the land in question is situated in Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, which is high fertile area. The sale deed, which was produced on record by the land owners (Ex. A15) was required to be considered, even though the same was registered a few days after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Such a sale transaction can very well be considered, in case the genuineness thereof is not disputed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below has already awarded much more than what the land owners deserved. In fact, it is a case of no evidence. The sale deed, produced on record by RFA No. 2461 of 2002 [5] the land owners, deserved to be rejected having been registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Besides that there was no other evidence on record. It is a case for reduction of compensation and not for enhancement, as is sought to be claimed in the appeals filed. In the absence of any appeal by the State, the prayer for reduction cannot be made. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. After considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present set of appeals. It is practically a case of no evidence. The solitary sale deed produced on record by the land owners was rightly not considered by the court below having been registered after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even otherwise, the location thereof was not pointed out on any site plan at the time of hearing of the appeal. Besides that, there was no documentary evidence. The learned court below still went on to apply the guess work without there being any material on record for the purpose of assessing the compensation @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre as against ` 1,40,000/- and ` 80,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri and Baran kind of land, respectively. In any case, from the material on record, as has been referred to by learned counsel for the land owners at the time of arguments, no case for enhancement of compensation has been made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.7.2010 mk