R. F. A No. 1237 of 1989 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1237 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.10.2010. Mam Chand and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1237 to 1241 and 2292 of 1989, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The landowners have approached this court through the present appeals seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 28.10.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Sukhrali, Hadbast No. 71, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,05,860/- per acre for chahi and ` 40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kinds of land. 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 judgment of this court in RFA No. 2004 of 1984- Smt. Sanjoyta Sehgal and others vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 8.4.1987, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 46/- per square yard. It is this award which is challenged in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award of the court below is not just and fair keeping in view the location and potentiality of the land. He submitted that the acquired land is surrounded by developed sectors but the court below has ignored this fact while assessing the market value of the acquired land. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 28.10.1983. Prior to that, the land pertaining to this very village was acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.5.1979, for development and utilisation as residential R. F. A No. 1237 of 1989 2 area in Sector-14, Gurgaon. This Court vide judgment in Smt. Sanjoyta Sehgal's case (supra), had determined the value of acquired land therein @ ` 40/- per square yard. But the learned court below while relying upon the aforesaid judgment in Smt. Sanjoyta Sehgal's case (supra), had granted increase merely @ ` 1.50 per year /per square yard, which is not as per the trend of the prices in the area. The submission is that as the acquired land is situated in the same village, the value thereof should be assessed at the same rate by granting further increase @ 15% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications which is more than four 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 has granted considerable increase for the time gap as per the trend of prices at the time of acquisition, 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 is located in the same village where the land acquired vide notification dated 19.5.1979 was situated. It is also admitted that this court in Smt. Sanjoyta Sehgal's case (supra), had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 19.5.1979 @ ` 40/- per square yard. The present land was acquired vide notification dated 28.10.1983 i.e. after about four and a half years from the earlier notification. If the base is taken in terms of the value of the land as assessed in Smt. Sanjoyta Sehgal's case (supra) reasonable increase for time gap in between two acquisitions can very well be granted. Keeping in view the time gap of about 4½ years between the two acquisitions, in my opinion, increase @ 10% per annum at ` 40/- would be reasonable. Adding ` 18/- therein, the value of the acquired land in the present case is determined @ ` 58/- per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010. issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to reiterate the same in the present set of appeals as well, which are as under:- “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it proper to R. F. A No. 1237 of 1989 3 issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open saving bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” The appeals are disposed of in above terms. 13.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge