RFA No.86 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.86 of 1994 Date of decision 02.4.2009. Land Acquisition Collector, SYL,Canal Project, Punjab Patiala. ...... Appellant. versus Prem Singh ...... Respondent. Present : Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, Advocate for Ms.Jai Shree Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. L.N.MITTAL,J.(Oral) This is appeal by Land Acquisition Collector against award dated 3.4.1993 of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby compensation for acquired land of respondent-Prem Singh has been enhanced on his Reference Petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short – the Act). State of Punjab vide notification No.1502/SYL/Const./87 published in Government Gazette dated 9/10.3.1987, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act published in Gazette on the same day, acquired 3.40 acres land in village Khera Gajju for a public purpose i.e. for construction of Mirzapur Distributory. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.231/P-SYL dated 6.10.1987 awarded compensation at the RFA No.86 of 1994 2 rate of Rs.62,000/- per acre for acquired chahi land and Rs.35,000/- per acre for acquired gair mumkin land. The respondent whose land was also included in the acquired land filed Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation alleging that market value of the acquired land was Rs.100/- per square yard or four lacs rupees per acre. The plea of the respondent was resisted by the appellant alleging that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded compensation after taking into consideration all the relevant factors. Following issues were framed for determination :- 1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? OPA. 2. Relief. Learned Reference Court vide impugned award held market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act to be Rs.1,48,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs.88,800/- per acre for gair mumkin land. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Respondents placed reliance on two sale deeds copies thereof are Exs.R-1 and R-2. Vide sale deed Ex.R-1 dated 27.7.1987, 8 kanals land i.e. one acre land was sold for Rs. 30,000/- and vide sale deed Ex.R-2 dated 20.8.1987, land measuring 2 kanals was sold for Rs.3000/- i.e. at the rate of 12000/- per acre. These sales instances cannot be said to be comparable sale instances and have been rightly discarded by the Reference Court because RFA No.86 of 1994 3 market value as per these sale deeds comes to much less than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The respondent land owner produced in evidence copy of award dated 18.5.1992 of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala Ex.A-1, pertaining land of the same village which was acquired vide notification dated 4.4.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act. In that case, compensation for acquired chahi land was determined to be @ Rs.1,60,000/- per acre, relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 1988 SLJ 501 pertaining to the land of the same village. In the case of Inder Singh (supra), notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.12.1982. Compensation was assessed to be Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs.60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. In the instant case, the Reference Court relying on the said rates determined in the case of Inder Singh (supra) and allowing an increase of 12% per annum for the intervening period between the dates of notifications under Section 4 of the Act in the case of Inder Singh (supra) and in the instant case, determined the compensation @ Rs.1,48,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs.88,800/- per acre for gair mumkin land. The Reference Court has ignored the period of three months which exceeded four years and has allowed increase of 48% for the gap period of four years. Consequently, there appears to be no infirmity in the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it is not proved that acquired land in the instant case is of the same quality as in the case of award Ex.A-1 or as in the case of Inder Singh(supra). The RFA No.86 of 1994 4 contention cannot be accepted. In the case of award Ex.A-1, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4.4.1988 i.e. more than a year later than the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the instant case. The Land Acquisition Collector, in the case of award Ex.A-1, awarded compensation for chahi land @ Rs.60,000/- per acre whereas in the instant case, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for chahi land @ Rs.62,000/-per acre, although notification under Section 4 of the Act in the case was issued a year earlier than the notifications under Section 4 of the Act in the case of award Ex.A-1. This by itself would show that the quality of acquired land, in the instant case, in terms of market value was superior and not inferior to the quality of land in the case of award Ex.A-1. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid contention on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N.MITTAL ) JUDGE May 14, 2009 sv