R.F.A. No. 2727 of 1987 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2727 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: October 15 ,2008 Rani Hem Lata and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for appellant No. 1. Mr. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate for appellant No. 2. Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal before this Court against award dated 22.7.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, whereby the learned Court below awarded Rs. 20/- per square yard as compensation for the acquired land. Prayer in the appeal is for enhancement of the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 93 kanals 1 marla forming part of revenue estate, Jind was acquired vide notification dated 17.6.1976 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of a new subzi mandi, Jind. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 24,000/- per acre besides Rs. 274/- on account of costs of trees and Rs. 2,700/- on account of costs of tubewell and its room. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded Rs. 20/- per square yard as compensation for the acquired land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Court below failed to consider the award for the acquired land vide notification dated 9.6.1976 for construction of Bal Bhawan, where the amount of compensation was assessed at Rs. 100/- per square yard, which has further been enhanced by this Court to Rs. 120/- per square yard vide judgment dated 28.8.2008 in RFA No. 222 of 1984-- Smt. Chameli Devi and others v. State of Haryana. The submission is that the land in question is situated in the abadi area where commercial establishments are there in the vicinity which had great future potential as such R.F.A. No. 2727 of 1987 [2] large chunk of land could be used for any commercial purpose, otherwise such large chunk of land is not available in the developed city. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land acquired for Bal Bhawan is situated far off from the land in question, though the dates of acquisition in both the cases is quite close, but still that would not be a relevant piece of evidence for the simple reason that in the present case, the Collector had assessed the compensation @ Rs. 24,000/- per acre, whereas in the case pertaining to acquisition of land for Bal Bhawan, the same was assessed at Rs. 40/- per square yard and the same was keeping in view the location of the land which cannot be equated with the land in question. He further submitted that the value of acquired land as assessed by the learned Court below at Rs. 20/- per square yard is perfectly right keeping in view the evidence on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellants in the present case produced on record letter (Ex. A.1) sent by the Collector's office to the Land Acquisition Collector intimating regarding the market value of the land, which in terms of the contents of letter, was Rs. 125/- per square yard upto the depth of 30' from the road and beyond that the same was Rs. 35/- per square yard It had further come on record that the land in question is about 1-1/2 kilometers away from the land acquired for Bal Bhawan which is a low lying area as the level thereof was 3-4 feet below the road level. As far as the reliance of learned counsel for the appellants on the award of the learned Court below in the case of the acquisition for Bal Bhawan and the judgment of this Court in Chameli Devi's case (supra), the same is totally misplaced for the simple reason that in that case, the acquired land was merely three kanals which is situated on main road close to bus stand and further the same was part of khasra No. 174/29 and the sale-deed on record and relied upon by the land owners therein was part of khasra No. 174/30 showing the rate of Rs.187/- per square yard. It was on that basis only that the value of the land was assessed @ Rs. 120/- per square yard by this Court enhancing the same from Rs. 100/- per square yard awarded by the learned Court below. A perusal of the site plan (Ex.A.13) shows that the acquired land is surrounded by roads on two sides. The area in the vicinity is well urbanised. The land of Bal Bhawan, for which the judgment of this Court was passed in Chameli Devi's case (supra), is not very far off from the acquired land, though the same is situated towards the bus stand. It is further not in dispute that the land falls within the municipal limits. Old Subzi Mandi is adjoining the acquired land. However, on the other side, it has also come on record in the statement of claimant-Rani Hem R.F.A. No. 2727 of 1987 [3] Lata that on one side of the land there is a pond where the water accumulates. The stand of the respondents was that the level of the acquired land is about three to four feet below the road level. It is further relevant to refer to the statement of claimant-Rani Hem Lata where she claimed the value of the land to be Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per square yard. Further in the evidence led by the appellants, reliance was placed on the award of Scheme No.19 and Scheme No.5 of the Improvement Trust and also on the award of the learned Court below in the case of Chameli Devi's case (supra), where the land was acquired for the purpose of Bal Bhawan. The award in the case of Chameli Devi pertained to the acquisition of land measuring merely 3 kanals was rightly not relied upon by the learned Court below for the reason that location thereof is better and also the acquisition of land was only for a small piece of land. In the present case, as far as location and quality of the land is concerned, the same is inferior thereto. Accordingly, reliance on that award cannot be placed. Another reason for the same is that acquisition in the present case is for a large chunk of land measuring 93 kanals 1 marla. Still, keeping in view the fact that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits, the old Subzi Mandi was already operating adjoining it, besides rice sheller and other commercial establishments. The value of the land as assessed by the learned Court below deserves revision. Considering the fact that even though a small plot measuring 3 kanals only situated towards the city has been assessed at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard and the land of the appellants is situated about 1-12 kilometers therefrom, the value thereof also cannot be assessed merely at Rs. 20/- per square yard as the undisputed fact on record is that the same is surrounded by roads on two sides. Another factor which is relevant is that even the appellant in her statement claimed the compensation @ Rs. 70/- to Rs. 80/- per square yard. In my opinion, even if this large chunk of land is situated within the municipal limits surrounded by two roads, the value of the entire land cannot be assessed at the same rate as the land on the road and in the back side will certainly have different value. Accordingly, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to assess the value of the land @ Rs. 40/- per square yard for the land, subject to the condition that the land abutting the road upto the depth of 200 feet shall be assessed at Rs. 50/- per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. As regards the prayer made by applicant -Dalip Singh in C.M. No. 2313-CI of 1993, this Court is not expressing any opinion thereon as the claim in the appeal is only regarding enhancement of compensation and not apportionment R.F.A. No. 2727 of 1987 [4] thereof. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above terms with costs. (Rajesh Bindal) October 15 ,2008 Judge mk