R. F. A. No. 222 of 1984 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A. No. 222 of 1984 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.8.2008 Smt. Chameli Devi and others ..... Appellants vs 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 claimants are in appeal before this court against the award of learned Additional District Judge, Jind where on account of acquisition of land owned by the appellants/claimants, a sum of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard has been awarded as compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification No. 5487- SC/76/19694 dated 9.6.1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), an area of 3 kanals bearing khasra no. 179/29 at Jind was acquired for public purpose namely, construction of Bal Bhawan. The award was announced by the Collector on 16.11.1978, granting compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. Dissatisfied with the award, the appellants/claimants filed objections claiming compensation at Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. The objections submitted before the Land Acquisition Collector were referred to the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 16.9.1983, relying upon an earlier award dated 18.3.1983, Ex. P-7, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. No one has appeared for the appellants. Learned counsel for the State has been heard. He submitted that determination of compensation in the present case is just and fair and does not call for any interference. It may also be noticed that the counsel for the State did not point out as to whether any other appeal arising out of same acquisition is either pending or disposed of by this court. R. F. A. No. 222 of 1984 2 On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimants in the present case submitted objections against the award on account of acquisition of land for extension of Nehru Park and setting up of a children park at Jind stating therein that the acquired land had great potential as the same is situated on the main road. There are commercial establishments near the acquired land. The appellants/claimants had already laid foundation on the spot at which substantial amount had been spent. In the evidence led before the court, besides relying upon the earlier award of the court below in the case of same acquisition, further reliance was made to Ex.P-2, a sale-deed dated 8.9.1980, Ex. P-3 sale-deed dated 5.9.1980, and Ex. P-6 sale-deed dated 26.3.1979. These sale-deeds were registered after the date of acquisition and cannot possibly be considered for determination of fair value of the land on the date of acquisition. Accordingly, the same are ignored being irrelevant. However, there is some relevance of the sale-deeds produced at Ex. P-4 and P-5, which are dated 15.3.1976 for sale of two plots measuring 16 sq. yard for a sum of Rs. 3000/- per acre each which comes to Rs. 187/- per sq. yard. It is recorded in the Ex. P-7 the award relied upon by the court below that the land which is forming part of sale-deeds Ex. P-4 and P-5 is part of khasra no. 174/30 and the land acquired is part of khasra no. 174/29 meaning thereby the location of the land being part of sale-deeds Ex. P-4 and P-5 is near by the land which is subject matter of acquisition in the present case. Further as is evident from the record, the acquisition is for extension of Nehru Park and setting up a children park at Jind. The fact that the acquisition is for public park, it means that the area cannot be said to be agricultural in its kind. Keeping these facts into consideration, in my opinion, the compensation as determined by the learned court below for the acquisition of the land is not appropriate and the same deserves some enhancement. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. They shall also be entitled to statutory benefits under the Act. The appeal is allowed in above terms with costs. 28.8.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge