RFA No. 3208 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 3208 of 1993 Date of decision: 13.11.2009 Amar Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Subhash Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of RFA No. 3208 of 1993 titled Amar Singh and others Vs. Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation, Chandigarh and another and RFA No. 89 of 1994 titled Haryana State Housing Corporation, Chandigarh Vs. Amar Singh and others,as they arise out of the same award. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RFA No. 3208 of 1993 titled Amar Singh and others Vs. Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation, Chandigarh and another. This appeal by the appellants/landowners is directed against the award 6.8.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, and reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). RFA No. 3208 of 1993 -2- The State of Haryana proposed to acquire the land of the claimants measuring 13 kanals 18 marlas situated at village Lotan, had bast No. 291, Tehsil & District Ambala, for public purpose, namely, for construction of Warehouse at Lotan. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.4.1980, whereas the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.2.1988. The learned Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 20.4.1989 assessing the market value of the acquired land at uniform rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per acre. The appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation by claiming the compensation to be inadequate. It is not in dispute, that besides compensation for the land, learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the tubewells and tress standing on the land, which was accepted by the landowners, as no challenge seeking enhancement on account of superstructure or trees was sought. The appellants claimed reference on the plea that the market value of the land was much higher. Reference was opposed by the State by taking a plea that the compensation awarded was just, fair and proper and did not call for any enhancement. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court framed the following issues: - RFA No. 3208 of 1993 -3- “1. What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP. 2. What was the market value of the tubewell and tress belonging to the petitioners? OPP. 3. Relief.” In support of the claim, the appellants examined PW1 Basheshar Nath, Patwari, who prepared the aks sajra of the acquired land, which was exhibited as Ex. P1 and aks sajra of village Naneola, which was exhibited as Ex. P2. The appellants examined Amar Singh as PW2, Bant Singh as PW3 and Joginder Singh as PW4. They also relied on the copies of sale deeds Ex. P4 to Ex. P6, as also copy of jamabandi Ex. P3. Respondents on the other hand examined S.C. Jha as RW1, Man Singh as RW2 and Sarwan Kumar as RW3, Patwari, who prepared the site plan Ex. R3. The State relied upon sale deeds Ex. R4 to Ex. R7. Statement made by PW1 claiming compensation @ Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lac only) per acre was rejected for want of any sale deed in support. Whereas other witnesses examined did not make a mentioned about the market value of the land. Learned Reference Court found that Ex. P4 i.e. sale deed was with respect to 8 kanals of land on 9.12.1985 for a sum of Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) per acre. The land sold was at village Lotan, where the land in question was acquired by the State of Haryana. Whereas sale deeds Ex. P5 and Ex. P5 relied upon by the appellants were of village Naneola and were not found to be relevant RFA No. 3208 of 1993 -4- for consideration of the market value, as sale deed in the village of acquisition was available. However, the learned Reference Court found that the sale deed for Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) per acre was dated 9.12.1985, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.4.1980. The learned Court, therefore, by giving benefit of escalation assessed the market value at Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) per acre. The learned Court took into consideration the fact that the prices of land were rising. The appellants were also held entitled to other statutory benefits. The appellants were also held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits under the provisions of the Act. Mr. Malkeet Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has challenged the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector primarily on the ground that the learned Court below committed an error in ignoring the sale deeds Ex. P5 and Ex. P6, though of adjoining village, on the plea that the quality of the land in both the villages was almost same, therefore, the learned Court should have taken the said sale deeds into consideration to assess the market value. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The award passed by the learned Additional District Judge is just and fair. The learned Reference Court has not only granted compensation on the basis of the sale deed RFA No. 3208 of 1993 -5- regarding the adjoining land to the one acquired by the State, but also gave benefit of escalation by taking note of the fact that prices were rising in the area. It was for the said reason that though by sale deed Ex. P4 the property was sold for Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) per acre, the compensation was granted at Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) per acre by giving increase of 12% every year. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that the learned Reference Court had failed to notice the potentiality of the land being adjacent to the road. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted as Ex. P4 represented the best piece of evidence to determine the market value, as it was just adjoining the acquired land and was also near the road. No ground is, therefore, made out to interfere with the award passed by the learned Reference Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge November 13, 2009 R.S.