R. F. A No. 61 of 1993 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 61 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.8.2010. Siri Ram and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowners have approached this court through the present appeal seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 20.8.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 0.27 acres of land situated within the Hadbast No. 1 of revenue estate Karnal, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-7, Urban Estate Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,32,250/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 2.11.1992, determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 66/- per square yard. It is this award which is challenged in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that award of the court below is not just and fair keeping in view the location and potentiality of the land. He submitted that the acquired land is surrounded by fully developed sectors but the court below has ignored all these factors while assessing the market value of the acquired land. The land in question was acquired vide notification dated 20.8.1987. Initially, for the land pertaining to this very Sector 7, acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 5.7.1982, this Court had determined the value @ ` 51/- per square yard vide judgment in Dr. Rajwant Singh (died) through LRs vs State of Haryana, reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 780. Placing reliance thereon, the submission is that it is the left out portion of the large chunk of land acquired vide notification dated 5.7.1982 situated in the vicinity and the value thereof should be assessed at the same rate by granting further increase @ 15% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications which is nearly five years. R. F. A No. 61 of 1993 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the court below after considering the evidence led by the parties. It is the left out portion of the earlier acquired land and the court below has granted considerable increase for the same, which does not call for any interference Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is admitted case of the parties that the land in question is the left out portion of the earlier acquired land for the same very purpose. It is also admitted that this court in Dr. Rajwant Singh's case (supra), had determined the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 5.7.1982 for the same very purpose @ ` 51/- per square yard. The present land was acquired vide notification dated 20.8.1987 i.e. after five years from the earlier notification. If the base is taken in terms of the value of the land as given in Dr. Rajwant Singh's case (supra) reasonable increase for time gap in between two acquisitions can very well be granted. Keeping in view the time gap of 5 years between the two acquisitions, in my opinion, increase @ 12% per annum at ` 51/- would be reasonable. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land in the present case is determined @ ` 81.60 per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 24.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge