RFA No.1241 of 1996 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1241 of 1996 Date of Decision: 17.11.2008 Union of India, through Secretary ..Appellant. Vs. Mota Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant-UOI. None for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of 25 appeals, namely, RFA Nos.1241 to 1265 of 1996 by a common judgment as common question of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 3018 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in village Daroli Khurd, Jalpot, Dhandaur and Damundha vide notification dated 14.3.1989 was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the `Act') and followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 19.3.1990. The acquired land measuring 3018 Kanals 17 marlas was classified as under: Name of village Class of land Total Chahi Barani Banjar Gair Mumkin 1. Daroli Khurd 1366.19 0-9 --- 20-8 1387.16 2. Jalpot 102.13 --- --- 4.0 106.13 3. Dhandor 487.1 76.5 44.6 14.16 622.3 RFA No.1241 of 1996 -2 - 4. Damunda 324.4 548.10 --- 29.6 902.0 3018.17 The Special Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 9.4.1992 determined the compensation @ Rs.70,000/- per acre for Chahi Land (Canal irrigated), Rs.32,000/- per acre regarding Barani/Gair Mumkin/Banjar Zadid land. However, as regards Gair Mumkin Abadi land, the compensation was awarded @ of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. Besides the compensation assessed for the land, the Collector found the land owners to be entitled to separate compensation regarding trees, tube-wells and structures already built on the acquired land. Various land owners, who were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, preferred Objections under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhanced compensation on the ground that market value of the acquired land both Chahi as well as Banjar/Barani/Gair Mumkin was not properly assessed to its potential value. It was further alleged that adjoining area was earlier sold at a higher rate whereas the compensation has been allowed on lower side. It was also pleaded that while acquiring the land in question, some land of the land owners was left out at the spot which became useless for which the land owners were entitled to severance charges. In the written statement filed by the respondent (appellant herein), it was alleged that the Collector for the purpose of the award arrived at market rates by taking into consideration the average of the sale transactions of the preceding years to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act along with other factors such as prevalent market rates. It was also alleged that the acquired land has been properly categorized as per its entry in the revenue record and fair and reasonable compensation has been RFA No.1241 of 1996 -3 - awarded. Similar reply has been given in respect of the trees, tube-wells and structures built on the acquired land that the Collector has given fair and just compensation after considering all aspects of the matter. Both the parties led evidence and after appreciating the same, learned Reference Court vide his award dated 17.10.1995 assessed the compensation of the entire acquired land including Chahi, Banjar, Barani, Gair Mumkin, at a uniform rate of Rs.85,000/- per acre and also awarded 25% increase in the value of standing trees in the disputed land, tube-wells installed and for the structures built over there. Sh.S.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has primarily objected to the award of 25% additional compensation for the tube-wells, trees and the structures and submitted that the assessment is totally arbitrary and without any basis. I have heard counsel for the appellant-Union of India and have perused the record with his assistance carefully. From the record, it is apparent that the learned Special Land Acquisition Collector has allowed separate compensation regarding the standing trees, tube-wells and the structures built on the acquired land. Annexure A relates to the compensation awarded to the land owners regarding the trees standing in their land. Annexure B relates to the compensation regarding tube-wells installed by the owners in their lands. Annexure C relates to the structures built by various land owners in their land acquired by the Government. The learned Reference Court while dealing with this aspect, has observed as under : “The fact that the different land owners were awarded different amounts of compensation regarding the trees standing RFA No.1241 of 1996 -4 - on the disputed land and the tube-wells installed in the same as well as the structures built on the same, shows that all the relevant aspects were taken into account by the learned Collector for awarding compensation regarding these items and he had applied his mind to all the relevant aspects while allowing compensation regarding those items. The petitioners, however, claim that while allowing compensation regarding the aforesaid items the same was assessed on the lower side. While installing tube-wells and raising of structures on the land etc. a person is sometimes required to spend on some items which are not taken into account while assessing compensation for the same. Similarly, the possibility of the standing trees having been assessed a bit on the lower side could not be ruled out. In my view, the uniform increase of 25% awarded by the learned Reference Court over and above the amount allowed to the land owners vide Annexures A, B and C which forms part of the award of the Collector, is just and fair and there is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the approach of the learned Court below. No other point has been raised by the counsel for the appellant-UOI. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 17.11.2008 Judge Meenu