RFA No. 602 of 1994 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 602 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.11.2010 Kabul Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondents no. 3 and 4. Rajesh Bindal J. This is an appeal against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking apportionment of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 23.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Patti Insar, Tehsil and District Panipat, for development and utilization thereof as residential and commercial area of Sector-13, Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the fair value of the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed objections. On reference under Section 30 of the Act, the learned court below dismissed the claim of the appellant. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Piara Singh orally agreed to sell the land in dispute to the appellant on 17.2.1988 for a total consideration of ` 1,60,000/-. He has also paid a sum of ` 15,000/- as earnest money. The said Piara Singh had also delivered the possession to the appellant. The appellant has led sufficient evidence in support of this claim but the court below has wrongly rejected the same. No one has appeared for respondents no. 3 and 4. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the land in question was recorded in the name of respondents no. 3 and 4. They had purchased the same from Piara Singh vide sale-deed, Ex. R-1, before its acquisition. The stand of RFA No. 602 of 1994 (2) private respondents was further corroborated by RW1 Shamsher Singh and RW2 Nidhan Singh and from the revenue record, Ex. R-2, Jamabandi and Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5 Khasra Girdawaris. On the other hand, the appellant has not produced on record any evidence to prove his possession over the disputed land. The mere oral agreement will not confer any title over the land in question. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the findings recorded by the court below do not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. 16.11.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge