R.F.A. No. 3786 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3786 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.8.2010 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants vs. Gurdev Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. L. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the land owners. .... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3786, 3787, 3789, 3790, 3792 to 3799 and 4890 to 4893 and 4895 of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction of the amount of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3786 of 208. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 24.3.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 15.30 acres of land falling in the revenue estates of villages Kotli, Kuttabad, Rattakhera, Hamaukhera, Shekhukhera, Pattikirpal, Mojukhera, Budhimari Hadbast No. 102, 107, 326, 135, 134, 133, 132 and 130, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa for construction of lined Southern Ghaggar Canal for Rabi season and parallel Earthern Canal for Kharif Season from RD 0 to 99580 tail (Sub reach 7900-27324, 30700-49200, 49700-53800, 56200- 63000). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation at the following rates: R.F.A. No. 3786 of 2008 [2] Sr. No. Village Nehri per acre Chahi per acre in ` in ` ............................................................................................................................... 1. Kotli 90,000/- 90,000/- 2. Kuttabad 1,00,000/- 80,000/- 3. Rattakhera 1,00,000/- 80,000/- 4. Hamaukhera 1,00,000/- 1,10,000/- 5. Shekhukhera 1,10,000/- 60,000/- 6. Pattikirpal 1,10,000/- 1,10,000/- 7. Mojukhera 1,10,000/- 1,10,000/- 8. Budhimari 1,15,000/- 1,15,000/- 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 @ ` 4,00,000/- in all the villages irrespective of the kind of land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below had not considered the evidence led by the land owners in support of their claim for enhancement of compensation. Vide sale deed (Ex. P6) registered prior to the acquisition, the land was sold @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre. Even if a small cut is applied considering the fact that it pertained to 10 marlas of land, still the land owners would be entitled to much more than what has been awarded by the learned court below. As regards location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deed, learned counsel for the land owners has not been able to point out the same on any of the site plan produced on record. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that a few days after the acquisition in the present case, the land pertaining to one of the village, namely, Kotli was acquired for the purpose of construction of Rangoi Kharif Channel vide notification dated 10.4.2003. The date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present set of cases is dated 24.3.2003. It was submitted that vide judgment dated 27.4.2009 in R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2007 –State of Haryana and another v. Mithu Singh and others, this court assessed the value of the acquired land of village Kotli at ` 3,00,000/- per acre. In the present case, the assessment of land at ` 4,00,000/- per acre by the learned court below is certainly on the higher side and deserves to be set aside. Similar would be the position with regard to land of other villages. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. R.F.A. No. 3786 of 2008 [3] The learned court below in the present case relied upon sale deed (Ex. P5) pertaining to village Hamaukhera, which was registered on 8.5.2002 for a big chunk of land measuring 36 kanals sold at an average price of ` 3,57,000/- per acre. The acquisition in the present case is about one year later. The land owners are also entitled to reasonable increase thereon for the time gap till the acquisition of land. The land being contiguous, the value thereof in all the villages will be similar. As far as reliance on judgment of this court in Mithu Singh's case (supra) is concerned, in my opinion, the apparent discrepancy in the case in hand and the aforesaid judgment is that though acquisition of land for the same village, namely, Kotli was carried out vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case on 24.3.2003 and in Mithu Singh's case (supra) vide notification dated 10.4.2003. However, there was huge difference in the award of the Collector. The same was ` 90,000/- per acre in the present case, whereas in Mithu Singh's case (supra), it was ` 1,30,000/- per acre. The learned Advocate General could not justify huge difference in the award of the Collector pertaining to the land of the same village acquired within the difference of 16 days. Meaning thereby the assessment of value, as done by the Collector, was patently erroneous. What can be opined is that effort in the present set of appeals was to deprive the land owners reasonable compensation for the acquired land. Considering the aforesaid facts and also that the land acquired is merely 15.30 acres, I do not find any reason to interfere in the appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 30.8.2010 mk