RFA No.671 of 1990 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.671 of 1990 Date of Decision: 24.10.2008 **** Deep Chand and others …. Appellant(s) Vs. State of Haryana and another ….. Respondent(s) **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Ms.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This judgment shall dispose of 5 appeals filed by the State of Haryana as well as the land owners, namely, RFA Nos. 671 of 1990 and RFA Nos.1117, 1119, 1120 & 1418 of 1989, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 10.55 acres in the area of Sonepat was notified vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short ‘the Act’) issued on 28.2.1984 published on 13.3.1984 followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 28.8.1985 published on 10.9.1985 at public expenses, for public purposes, namely, for the construction of a Circular Road, Phase-I, Sonepat-Gohana Road to Sonepat Purkash Road. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat vide his award No.39 for the year 1985-86, dated 24.3.1986 found that out of 10.55 acres of land only 1.10 acres of land has been found at the spot and the difference of 9.45 acre in the area is either due to mis-calculation of the area of Min. Khasra Nos. or RFA No.671 of 1990 - 2 - approximate area taken for the purpose of declaration. The acquired land as categorized by the Collector is as under: Sr. No. Class of Land Area under acquisition 1. Nehri 3 1 2. Chahi 0 14 3. Gair-mumkin Thus 1 3 4. Gair-mumkin Dhahana 0 4 5. Gair-mumkin Rasta 0 4 Total 5 6 (1.10 acres) The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for two types of land i.e. Nehri & Chahi @ Rs.30,000/- per acre and Banjar & Gaim-mumkin @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. Dis contended with the award under Section 11 of the Act pronounced by the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act which were sent to the Civil Court for adjudication. In the claim-petition, it was inter alia alleged that the value of the acquired land is not less than Rs.100/- per sq. yards. The land is having great potentiality, being adjacent to Sugar Mills, Police lines and District Jail etc. In the written statement, the claim of the claimants/landowners was contested and it was alleged that the compensation has been assessed by the Collector after taking into consideration sale transactions and situation/location of the land in question, which are essential for the announcement of the award. It was also alleged that the land of claimants is far away from the police lines, judicial complex, District Jail and sugar mill, Sonepat. The land in question was within the municipal limits. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The reference Court, after appreciating all the evidence vide his award dated RFA No.671 of 1990 - 3 - 18.2.1989 enhanced the compensation from Rs.30,000/- per acre to Rs.35,000/- per acre. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the landowners. Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana has vehemently argued that the Court below palpably erred while not appreciating the sale deeds (Exs.R1 to R4) produced by the State. It was, however, conceded that sale deeds Ex. R1 and R2 are irrelevant because the value per acre in these sale deeds is less than the award of the Collector which cannot be taken into consideration in view of Section 25 of the Act. Insofar as the sale deed Ex.R3 is concerned, it is of 17.11.1983 vide which the value of the acquired land has been assessed @ Rs.5/- per sq. yards. It is observed by the Court below that even Collector has given award @ Rs.6/- per sq. yards, therefore, even this sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration. After examining the entire record, I have found that the compensation has been awarded by the Collector @ Rs.6/- per sq. yard which has been marginally increased by Rs.1/- per sq. yard and assessed @ Rs.7/- per sq. yard, therefore, there is no scope for interference in these appeals filed by the State of Haryana. No other point has been raised by the learned counsel. In view of circumstances mentioned hereinabove, both the appeals filed by the claimants and State of Haryana are hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 24.10.2008 JUDGE vivek