R.F.A. No. 2343 of 1986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No.2343 of 1986 Date of decision: November 17 , 2008 Kishori Lal .. Appellant Versus Punjab State and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Asistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking compensation for the super structure which allegedly stood on the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification in December, 1977, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), the State of Punjab acquired the land for construction of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project in the revenue estate of village Hambewal, District Ropar. Compensation for the acquired land was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award dated 28.3.1979. Supplementary award for the super structure was announced on 7.2.1980. Aggrieved against the same, the land owner filed objections which were referred to the learned District Judge, Ropar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by him on record to show that the house consisting of nine rooms was existing on the land at the time of acquisition thereof, for which no compensation was paid. He referred to jamabandi (Ex. P4), for the year 1978-79, wherein it was shown that the land was gair mumkin abadi. He further referred to document (Ex. P5) in the form of assessment register. On the strength thereof, the submission is that the house in question constructed by the appellant had been subjected to house tax way back in R.F.A. No. 2343 of 1986 the year 1962-63. The submission is that the land in question was taken on lease by the father of the appellant and super structure was raised by him. Further, in support of his claim reference was made to the statement of Makhtul Singh, owner of the land, who stated that he had given the land on lease to Karta Ram, father of the appellant, who had raised construction thereon. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that barring oral statement on record to claim compensation on account of acquisition of alleged house constructed on the acquired land, documentary evidence produced by the appellant was not convincing which could enable the learned court below to hold that the house was existing on the spot, for which compensation was payable to the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as documents (Ex. P4 and Ex. P5), referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, in my opinion, the same do not establish that in fact at the time of acquisition of land in 1977, there existed any house on the spot in question. Ex. P4 is merely a jamabandi for the year 1978-79 showing the land to be gair mumkin abadi. Document (Ex. P5) is a copy of the assessment register of Notified Area Committee, Nangal Township, wherein certain property has been shown to be subjected to house tax for the years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1965-66. It could not be established from any other evidence on record to show that the house tax pertained to the same property which was acquired. In addition thereto, there is a statement of appellant-Kishori Lal on record, who while appearing as PW-1 stated that on the land owned by Makhtul Singh, which was taken on lease by his father -Karta Ram, in the year 1974 seven houses had been constructed, which had been acquired. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the houses were got constructed by his father who died in the year 1980. He was alive when the houses were acquired, but he did not make any application for compensation thereof. It was in support of this that the estimated cost of construction in the form of Ex. P2 was placed on record showing the value of the construction at Rs. 15,240.79. A perusal of the above referred evidence led by the appellant clearly establishes that in fact there were not houses. The stand taken by him is self contradictory. On the one hand, assessment register (Ex. P5) is sought to be produced to submit that the houses in question were subjected to house tax in the year 1962-63. On the other hand, the appellant, while appearing as PW1 stated that the houses were constructed in the year 1974. When the houses itself were R.F.A. No. 2343 of 1986 constructed in the year 1974, as per the statement of the appellant, where was the question of these being assessed to house tax in the year 1962-63. As far as construction of the houses in the year 1974 is concerned, barring the oral statement of the appellant and the land owner, no material is on record to corroborate the same. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 17 , 2008 mk