R.F.A. No. 2112 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 2112 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2011 Pawan and others .....Appellants vs State of Haryana .....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the landowners. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the following appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2112 of 2006, RFA Nos. 3424 to 3437, 3480, 3481, 3580 to 3585, 3600 to 3602, 3742 to 3744, 3866, 4156, 4332 to 4340, 4358, 4359 of 2007; RFA Nos. 44 to 53, 144 to 147, 152 to 154, 159 to 161, 163 to 165, 169 to 171, 186 to 190, 665 to 668, 987, 1362, 3077, 3078, 3263, 3265, 3623 to 3629, 4998, 5062 to 5071, 5184, 5193, 5196, 5197, 5686 of 2008; RFA Nos. 1676, 1760 and 3113 of 2009; as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Whereas in the appeals filed by the State of Haryana, prayer is for reduction thereof. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Gatauli-Karela Drain, Rajana Sub-Drain, Bhairon Khera-Ram Kali Drain Minor, vide different notifications of even date pertaining to land of different villages, though located nearby. The facts thereof are given in the succeeding paras. R.F.A. No. 2112 of 2006 [2] Vide notification dated 6.2.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire land, situated in villages Gatauli, Gharwai, Jhamola, Karela, Rajana, Bhairo Khera, Paju Kalan, Ram Kali, Shamlo Kalan, Nidhana, and Dhindana District Jind, for construction of Gatauli-Karela Drain, Rajana Sub-Drain, Bhairon Khera-Ram Kali Drain Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 3.6.2002, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation for the acquired land of different villages at the following rates:- Name of the village Compensation assessed in ` Gatauli 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri, ` 90,000/- per acre for barani, ` 80,000/- per acre for banjar kadeem and gair mumkin land. Gharwai 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 80,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. Jhamola 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri, 90,000/- per acre for barani, and ` 80,000/- per acre for banjar-kadeem / gair mumkin land. Karela 1,25,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 80,000/- per acre for banjar-kadeem/gair mumkin land. Rajana 1,75,000/- per acre for nehri/gair mumkin land Bhairo Khera 1,70,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for barani/banjar kadeem kinds of land. Paju Kalan 1,75,000/- per acre for nehri/gair mumkin land Ram Kali 1,75,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for barani/banjar kadeem land. Shamlo Kalan 1,70,000/- per acre for nehri and gair mumkin and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for barani land. Nidhana 1,70,000/- per acre for nehri and gair mumkin and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for barani land. Dhindana 1,70,000/- per acre for nehri and gair mumkin and ` 1,20,000/- per acre for barani land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land of different villages at the following rates:- Name of the village Compensation assessed in ` Gatauli 3,00,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 2,50,000/- per acre for other kinds of land. Gharwai 3,00,000/- per acre R.F.A. No. 2112 of 2006 [3] Name of the village Compensation assessed in ` Jhamola 3,00,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 2,50,000/- per acre for other kinds of land Karela 2,50,000/- per acre for nehri and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for other kinds of land Rajana 3,50,000/- per acre Bhairo Khera 3,00,000/- per acre Paju Kalan 3,50,000/- per acre Ram Kali 3,00,000/- per acre Shamlo Kalan 3,00,000/- per acre Nidhana 3,00,000/- per acre Dhindana 3,00,000/- per acre for nehri and gair mumkin and ` 2,50,000/- per acre for barani land. Both the parties are before this court against the aforesaid awards of the learned court below. A perusal of the impugned awards shows that the landowners in the present set of appeals have failed to lead any documentary evidence to justify their claim to the effect that the value of the acquired land assessed by the Collector was not just and fair. They merely lead oral evidence. Still the learned court below applying a thumb rule has enhanced the compensation. Though the State had produced sale-deeds on record, however, the location thereof was not shown on any the site plan produced on record. The site plan has been produced on record showing the location of the acquired land. It is further evident from the impugned award that the learned court below has recorded that as a consequence of the acquisition, the land of the landowners has been divided into two parts. But no compensation on account of severance has been awarded to the landowners. Though in the aforesaid circumstances of the case and considering the material on record, this court could dismiss the appeals filed by the landowners seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and considering the same evidence, finding some merits in the appeals filed by the State seeking reduction thereof, could allow these appeals. However, the facts remain that the land is quite dear to the farmers. It is their bread and butter. If the same is acquired for any public good and to serve a larger public interest for the benefit of the public in general, the R.F.A. No. 2112 of 2006 [4] persons whose land had been acquired, certainly deserve to be compensated adequately therefor. The onus to prove the value of the acquired land, as assessed by the Collector was not correct, is always on the land owners, which has to be discharged by leading cogent evidence. What can be opined from the material on record is that the land owners in the present case have failed to lead clinching evidence which could enable the Court to reach a conclusion that fair value of the acquired land was in terms of the claim made by them. They have led only oral evidence on record in support of their claim, which in my opinion, is not enough as the onus to prove that the compensation as assessed by the Collector was not adequate is always on the land owners, who is in the position of a plaintiff. It has been pointed out at the time of hearing that some other cases arising out of acquisition of land for the same purpose were remitted back by this court vide judgment dated 19.1.2011 passed in RFA No. 2564 of 2005 Kailasho and others vs State of Haryana, for fresh decision after permitting the parties to lead further evidence to justify their claim as the landowners therein had also failed to lead any documentary evidence in support of their claims. Though notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present set of appeals is different, but the acquisition was for construction of Gatauli-Karela Drain, Rajana Sub-Drain, Bhairon Khera- Ram Kali Drain Minor, which is in continuation of Barsola Feeder, Ramkali minor and Kalwa-Kinana drain, subject matter of appeal in Kailasho's case (supra). Considering the aforesaid facts, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned awards and remit the case back to the learned court below for fresh decision after permitting the parties to lead further evidence to justify their claim. Keeping in view the fact that the acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1997, the parties through their counsels are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Jind on 5.3.2011. It would be appropriate if District Judge clubs the cases with the cases remitted earlier. The learned court below shall dispose of the cases expeditiously preferably by the end of year 2011 after affording adequate opportunities to both the parties, may be giving short dates. R.F.A. No. 2112 of 2006 [5] As a consequence of the setting aside of the awards of the court below, the landowners shall not be liable to refund the amount already received by them. However, they shall abide by the fresh award which may be passed by the learned court below after remand. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. 20.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge