R.F.A. No. 3037 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 14.5.2010 1. R.F.A. No. 3037 of 2008 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Maha Singh and others ..... Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 3038 of 2008 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant Versus Baje Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 3037 of 2008. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 19.8.2005 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition the Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), State of Haryana, acquired 1.40 acres of land situated in revenue estates of Village Kalta, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, for the extension of 1-L Barsola minor. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 28.10.2005 in respect of 1.26 acres of land. Vide award no. 4 dated 29.9.2006, the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter to be referred as “the Collector”) awarded compensation to the landowners at Rs. 5 lacs per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below, on the basis of material placed on record by the parties, assessed the compensation at Rs. 7 lacs per acre, vide award dated 31.3.2008. It is this award which is impugned by the State before this court. Learned Advocate General submitted that the learned court below has not given due consideration to the evidence produced by the State in the form of sale-deed dated 15.1.2008, Ex. R1, while assessing the market value of the R.F.A. No. 3037 of 2008 2 acquired land. He submitted that the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld and the amount awarded by the learned court below be set aside. Heard learned State counsel and perused the paper-book. A perusal of the paper-book shows that sale-deed, Ex. R1, was executed on 15.1.2008 i.e. after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act which was issued on 19.8.2005. Therefore, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of assessment of fair market value of the acquired land. Learned Advocate General, Haryana, did not dispute the fact that the Government of Haryana had fixed minimum rate of land in the State of Haryana at Rs. 5 lacs per acre vide memo dated 28.4.2005, which was revised to Rs. 8 lacs per acre vide memo dated 6.4.2007. It was for the awards pronounced thereafter. The award in the present case was announced by the Collector on 29.9.2006 which is about six months prior to the revision of minimum rates. Further that with the acquisition of land for construction of drain, the land of the owners is always divided into two parts on account of which the landowners are also entitled to award on damages on account of severance. If both the aforesaid factors are considered, the award of compensation by the learned court below @ Rs. 7 lacs per acre cannot be said to be on higher side. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. 14.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge