RFA No. 1729 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1729 of 1991 Date of decision: 24.10.2009 Ram Pat and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of RFA No. 1729 of 1991 titled Ram Pat and others Vs. State of Haryana and another and RFA No. 1730 of 1991 titled Ram Chander and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake facts are being taken from RFA No. 1729 of 1991 titled Ram Pat and others Vs. State of Haryana and another. The claimant-land owners have preferred this appeal against the award dated 6.6.1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act, showing its intention to acquire 8.27 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Iqbalpur for construction of Gurgaon Water Supply RFA No. 1729 of 1991 -2- Channel. After issuance of notification under Section 6 and notice under Section 9 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 2.1.1990 allowing the compensation for chahi land at the rate of Rs.45,120/- (Rupees forty five thousand one hundred twenty only) per acre, albarani land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per acre and gair mumkin land at the rate of Rs.25,120/- (Rupees twenty five thousand one hundred twenty only) per acre. The land owners preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the market value of the land on the plea, that the compensation granted was inadequate. In addition, compensation for severance of land was also claimed. The reference was contested on the ground, that the compensation assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was fair and adequate, and that the land owners were not entitled to any enhancement nor they were entitled to compensation for severance of land or for damage to the land, on the plea that there was no severance of land of the claimants. In support of the claim, the land owners relied upon the sale deed Ex. P-1 as also the copy of the judgment placed on record as Ex. P- 2, whereas the State on the other hand relied on judgment Ex. R-1 and also placed on record the sale deeds Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3. The learned Reference Court did not rely upon sale deed Ex. P-1 and judgment Ex. P-2, relied upon by the land owners, primarily for the reason that the sale deed Ex. P-1 related to village Kaliawas and the judgment Ex. P-2 was with respect to the land falling in village Makrola, as the sale instances of village Iqbalpur were available on record. The RFA No. 1729 of 1991 -3- learned Reference Court also found that the sale deeds relied upon by the State i.e. Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 were with regard to the sale which had taken place several months prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The learned Reference Court found, that the award Ex. R-1 related to the same notification and the area involved was also of village Iqbalpur and, therefore, it provided best criterion for fixing the market value. The learned Reference Court, therefore, by placing reliance on award Ex. R-1 fixed the market value of chahi land at Rs.60,000/-, magda land at Rs.53,200/- and gair mumkin land at Rs.33,300/-. The learned Court also did not find any force in the claim of damages for severance for want of any evidence. In addition, the appellant-land owners were granted statutory benefits under the Act. Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the learned Reference Court wrongly rejected the sale deed Ex. P-1 and judgment Ex. P-2, on the plea that they were with respect to different villages. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that merely because of sale deed was of a different village, could not be a ground to reject it. The learned Reference Court was not correct in holding that reference of sale of village Iqbalpur was available. Reliance on Ex. R-1 was also mis-conceived as in the award Ex. R-1, price of the chahi land was not involved and it dealt with only magda land and, therefore, it could not be said that instances of Iqbalpur were available to reject the sale instances Ex. P-1 and judgment Ex. P-2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants further RFA No. 1729 of 1991 -4- is, that Ex. P-2 is the award with regard to acquisition of land of adjoining village for the same purpose, therefore, the learned Court could have relied upon Ex. P-2 to assess the market value for chahi land and not based its finding on guess work by taking the assessment of magda land given in Ex. R-1. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana contends that the award passed does not call for any interference, as the instances Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 regarding sale deeds in village Iqbalpur were available. In case these are taken into consideration, then the amount awarded cannot be said to be low or not depicting the correct market value. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is proved on record, that distance of both the villages i.e. Iqbalpur and Makrola from Gurgaon is same and they adjoin each other. The acquisition of the land was also for the same purpose i.e. for construction of Gurgaon Water Supply Channel. The learned Reference Court, therefore, was not right in rejecting Ex. P-2 i.e. award regarding market value for acquisition at village Makrola, especially when it was proved on record that village Makrola adjoins village Iqbalpur and distance of both the villages from Gurgaon is same. The contention of the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, cannot be accepted for the reason that Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 were even not accepted by the learned Land Acquisition Collector while fixing the compensation. The learned Reference Court rightly rejected those sale instances, though the reason given may not be good. For the reasons stated above, by placing reliance on Ex. P-2, RFA No. 1729 of 1991 -5- this appeal is allowed, the compensation payable for chahi land is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) per acre, whereas the compensation fixed for the other categories of land is maintained. The appellants in addition, shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Act on enhanced compensation, qua chahi land. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 24, 2009 R.S.