RFA No.2714 of 1992 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 2714 of 1992 Decided on November 04,2008. State of Punjab and another ---Appellants vs. Gurbax Singh and another ---Respondents. Present: Mr.N.S.Pawar,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the appellants. None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: This judgment shall dispose of 10 appeals filed by the State of Punjab i.e. RFA Nos. 2714,2715,2716,2717,2718,2719, 2720,2721,2722 and 2723 all of 1992, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The land measuring 2.67 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Luhand. H.B.No. 248, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, was proposed for acquisition for the construction of Gobindgarh distributory from R.D. No.8.00 to 12.00 K.M for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,'the Act'), was issued on 4.3.1987 followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 06.3.1987. The Land Acquisition Collector SYL Canal Project, Punjab RFA No.2714 of 1992 2 Project, Patiala, found the actual measurement of the area to be 2.52 acres instead of 2.67 acres. Vide his award No. 232/P-SYL dated 6.10.1987, the compensation was awarded at the following rates:- Kind of land Area Rate per acre Chahi 9B-1Biswas Rs.60,000/- Rausli 2B-19Biswas Rs.50,000/- Gair Mumkin 0-2 Biswas Rs.35,000/- Besides the statutory benefits as per the amended Act, the landowners up to an area or 5 acres beyond the distributory were also awarded 25% of the severance charges. The landowners carried references to the Civil Court by filing objections under Section 18 of the Act in which they had taken identical pleas that the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs. 2 lacs per acre as the acquired land had high potentiality. While contesting the claim of the landowners, the State of Punjab filed the written statement in which it was pleaded that just compensation has already been awarded by the Collector on due consideration of all the relevant factors and the compensation for severance of land is also adequate keeping in view the location of the land. The acquired land is located in village Luhand, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Bal Kishan Patwari appeared as AW1 and deposed that the distributory flows from village Kheri Gurna and leads towards Shambu after passing through the area of village Luhand. He placed on record Akash-Shajra, according to which revenue estate of village Kheri Gurna is adjacent to the estate of village Luhand. The land of Kheri Gurna was acquired vide notification of the same date as also in the present case i.e. 4.3.1987 for the RFA No.2714 of 1992 3 same purpose i.e. for construction of Gobindgarh distributory. The landowners of village Kheri Gurna filed objections to the award of the Collector which were decided by the Reference Court of Sh. K.R.Mahajan, the learned District Judge, Patiala vide his award dated 22.12.1990, copy of which is Ex. A 10, whereby the landowners were awarded compensation @ Rs. 1 lac per acre for Chahi/Nehri land, Rs.40,000/- per acre for Rausli/Gair Mumkin land. In the present cases, the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded Rs.50,000/- per acre for Rausli type of land and as per the amended Act, the compensation by the Reference Court cannot be less than the award of the Collector. Therefore, the Court below assessed the value of the Rausli type of land separately. The Court below while following the award Ex. A10, assessed the market value of the Chahi land @ Rs. 1 lac per acre and adopting the same ratio fixed value of Rausli type of land @ Rs.83,333/- per acre which was rounded off to Rs. 83,500/- per acre. The learned Court below finally redetermined the compensation for the acquired land @ Rs.1 lac per acre for Chahi, @ Rs.83,500/- per acre for Rausli and @ Rs.40,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin. Mr. N.S.Pawar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the appellant-State has vehemently argued that the Court below had erred in not appreciating the fact that the sale deeds Exs.R1 and R-2 dated 23.5.1986 and 26.5.1986 respectively depict the value of the land sold in village Luhand @ Rs.12,000/- per acre and there is no other sale deed on record which could controvert the sale deeds Exs. R1 and R-2. Therefore, the learned Court below should have relied upon the sale deeds too in respect of award of adjacent village Kheri Gurna. RFA No.2714 of 1992 4 I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have given thoughtful consideration to his submissions. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants appears to be attractive but cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the sale deeds Exs. R-1 and R-2 dated 23.5.1986 and 26.5.1986 of village Luhand is of the value of Rs.12,000/- per acre which is far below the compensation awarded by the Collector. It means that these sale transactions were not even found to be worth consideration by the Collector while awarding the compensation of the acquired land of village Luhand @ Rs 60,000/- per acre for Chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Rausli and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for Gair-Mumkin. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants in this regard. No other point has been raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error of law in the judgment of learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala,dated 03.3.1992 and while upholding the same, dismiss all the appeals filed by the appellants- State of Punjab without any order as to costs. November ,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge