R. F. A No. 3487 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 3487 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.9.2010. Ajit Kaur ..... Appellant vs State of Punjab ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner has approached this court through the present appeal seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 27.7.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Chalheri, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, for construction of bye-pass Channel. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.4.1990. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 10.7.1990, assessed the market value of the acquired chahi land @ ` 50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 14.12.1992, determined the market value of the acquired chahi land @ ` 25,800/- per bigha. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below had not assessed the fair value of the acquired land. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 27.7.1989. Initially, for the land pertaining to this very village was acquired vide notification dated 2.11.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Act for construction of SYL Power House, Rajpura at village Chalheri, wherein this Court had determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land, vide judgment passed in RFA No. 2151 of 1993 Amar Singh and another vs State of Punjab, decided on 30.8.2006. Placing reliance thereon, the submission is that this court in Amar Singh's case (supra) had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 2.11.1987 @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land, therefore, the value of the land R. F. A No. 3487 of 1993 2 acquired vide notification dated 27.7.1989 situated in the same village should be assessed at the same rate by granting further increase @ 15% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications which is nearly two years. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the court below after considering the evidence led by the parties. The court below had rightly assessed the value of the land which was prevailing in the relevant year, which does not call for any interference Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is admitted case of the parties that the land in question and the one, which was considered by this court in Amar Singh's case (supra) is situated in the same village and is of chahi kind. It is also admitted that this court in Amar Singh's case (supra), had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 2.11.1987 @ ` 1,50,000/- per acre for chahi and ` 75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. The present land was acquired vide notification dated 27.7.1989 i.e. 21 months after the earlier acquisition, as considered in Amar Singh's case (supra). If the base is taken in terms of the value of the land as given in Amar Singh's case (supra) reasonable increase for time gap in between two acquisitions can very well be granted. Keeping in view the time gap of 21 months between the two acquisitions, in my opinion, increase @ 12% per annum on ` 1,50,000/- per acre would be reasonable. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land in the present case is determined @ ` 1,81,500/- per acre. The appellant shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 13.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge