R.F.A. No. 2432 of 1990 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.F.A. No.2432 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision : December 02, 2008 Rajeev Kumar and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 16.4.1974 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), 18 kanals 10 marlas of land situated in the area of Bhiwani-Lohar was acquired for construction of a workshop. The same was followed by notification dated 16.10.1974 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 7,000/- per acre for chahi and gair mumkin khaal; Rs. 6,000/- per acre for taal land and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for banjar kadim kind of land. As the land owners were dissatisfied, they filed objections, which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed before him, determined the market value of the land at Rs. 2.25 per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that fair value of the land, as was assessed by the learned court below, requires further increase by this Court as awards (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) have not been considered in their true letter and spirit, where for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 12.3.1973, the value was assessed at Rs. 9/- per square yard. He submitted that the land pertaining to award (Ex. P1) was not located far off from the acquired land which was located quite close to the city. The acquisition is for a small piece of land measuring 18 kanals and 10 marlas. Keeping in view this fact and also that the acquisition in the present case is more than one year thereafter and also that R.F.A. No. 2432 of 1990 [2] lateron, the land in question became part of the extended municipal limits, the distance, if any, from the land pertaining to award (Ex. P1) should be set off against the benefits attached to that land. He further submitted that location is evident from the site plan, now produced by the State in Court in terms of the order passed by this Court on 28.7.2008, which clearly shows that the acquired land is quite close to the land acquired vide notification dated 12.3.1973. He further submitted that this Court should take judicial notice of the fact that Bhiwani city is situated close to the acquired land and within the abadi of Bhiwani- Lohar. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that reliance on awards (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) in toto would be totally misplaced as there is no comparability between the two pieces of land. As is evident from the impugned award, the land owners in the present case had not been able to make out their case before the learned court below by producing any site plan to show the comparability of two lands. He further submitted that a perusal of award (Ex. P1) shows that the land forming part therein was acquired for the purpose of use thereof as residential, commercial and Civil Station in Urban Estate, wherein for the purpose of determination of just and fair compensation, the court had relied upon earlier awards pertaining to construction of Road Inspectors' quarters, PWD Rest House and land near Adarsh Colony, Bhiwani. This would necessarily mean that this part of the land was part of the already developed city or quite close thereto, whereas in the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that the land in question is close to the city, as it was situated far off from there. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the only evidence produced by the appellants in the present case was in the form of two awards (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) pertaining to earlier acquisitions. It is specifically recorded by the learned court below that though the land owners stated that the land in the present case is situated in the neighbourhood of the land forming part of awards (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) but no site plan was produced on record to show the exact location thereof. All what was evident from the statement of RW1- Har Narain that the land in question is situated on Chang Road, whereas the land pertaining to awards (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2) was situated near the town, where the value was assessed at Rs. 9/- per square yard. As a matter of indulgence, coming to the rescue of the appellants, this Court vide order dated 28.7.2008 directed the State to prepare a site plan showing the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the land forming part of awards R.F.A. No. 2432 of 1990 [3] (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2), though the onus to prove the location of the land and comparability with the evidence produced is on the land owners. A site plan has been produced in court which shows that the land pertaining to award (Ex. P1) is situated quite close to the abadi of village Bhiwani-Lohar, whereas the land in question is situated far off from there. The appellants in the present case in spite of the order passed by this Court on 28.7.2008 directing the State to place the site plan on record did not make any effort to get a site plan prepared to show the exact location of the land in dispute and the land forming part of awards (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2). The location of the city has not been shown in any of the site plans produced on record. Unless the onus on the land owners to prove the location of the land vis- a-vis the evidence produced by them on record is established by way of convincing evidence, this Court will not be able to take a view that the award of the learned court below assessing the value of the acquired land was in any manner perverse which could enable this Court to enhance the value of the acquired land further. The learned court below, while assessing the value of the acquired land and referring to award (Ex. P1) has applied a cut of 75% In the absence of any convincing evidence on record, this Court will not be in a position to opine that the cut which was applied was not called for. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 02, 2008 mk