R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.1.2010 1. RFA No. 3304 of 2006 (O&M) Malkiat Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 2. RFA No. 3305 of 2006 (O&M) Surjan Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and others .... Respondents 3. RFA No. 3306 of 2006 (O&M) Avtar Singh and another ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 4. RFA No. 3307 of 2006 (O&M) Shinder Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 5. RFA No. 3308 of 2006 (O&M) Varinder Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 6. RFA No. 3309 of 2006 (O&M) Kaka Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 7. RFA No. 3310 of 2006 (O&M) Labh Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 8. RFA No. 3311 of 2006 (O&M) Pargat Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006 [2] 9. RFA No. 3312 of 2006 (O&M) Mewa Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 10. RFA No. 3313 of 2006 (O&M) Gurdev Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 11. RFA No. 3314 of 2006 (O&M) Mohinder Singh ... Appellant vs The State of Punjab .... Respondent 12. RFA No. 3315 of 2006 (O&M) Ram Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 13. RFA No. 3316 of 2006 (O&M) Natha Singh and another ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 14. RFA No. 3317 of 2006 (O&M) Harbhajan Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 15. RFA No. 3318 of 2006 (O&M) Hardev Kaur ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 16. RFA No. 3319 of 2006 (O&M) Prem Singh and another ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006 [3] 17. RFA No. 3320 of 2006 (O&M) Balbir Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 18. RFA No. 3321 of 2006 (O&M) Dial Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 19. RFA No. 3322 of 2006 (O&M) Jaspal Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 20. RFA No. 3323 of 2006 (O&M) Hakam Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 21. RFA No. 3324 of 2006 (O&M) Gurcharan Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 22. RFA No. 3325 of 2006 (O&M) Bachan Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 23. RFA No. 3400 of 2006 (O&M) Jagjit Singh and another ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 24. RFA No. 3401 of 2006 (O&M) Raunaq Singh ... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 25. RFA No. 3540 of 2006 (O&M) Harpal Singh and another ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006 [4] 26. RFA No. 4161 of 2006 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents 27. RFA No. 3616 of 2007 (O&M) Gurmit Singh and others ... Appellants vs Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 27 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 7.10.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), acquired 74.99 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Doomchheri for construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal. The same was followed by notification dated 10.10.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: Chahi Rs. 72,500/- per acre Barani Rs. 50,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs. 45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The land owners/claimants feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land as under: R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006 [5] Chahi Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre Barani Rs. 80,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs. 60,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs. 47,000/- per acre. It is this award of the learned Reference Court which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants-land owners submitted that the amount of compensation, as has been assessed by the learned court below for acquisition of land is not in terms of the evidence placed on record by the land owners. The learned court below has failed to appreciate various earlier awards pertaining to the land acquired of different neighbouring villages and also the sale deeds produced on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that already the land owners have been awarded compensation much more than what they deserved. There is no scope for any further enhancement therein. He further submitted that for the land pertaining to neighbouring village Kajauli, award by learned District Judge, Ropar granting compensation even at lessor rate than what has been awarded to the appellants-land owners, has been upheld by this Court in R.F.A. No. 741 of 1992 –The State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh and others, decided on 10.2.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper- book, I do not find that any case for enhancement of compensation already awarded to the appellants is made out. It is not in dispute that land of village Kajauli adjoins the boundaries of village Doomchheri, to which the land in question belongs. The acquisition in the present case was for construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal, which was passing through various villages. For the land, which was acquired vide separate notification dated 7.10.1985, pertaining to village Kajauli, the award of learned District Judge granting compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 75,000/- per acre for Barani land; Rs. 65,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim land and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land was upheld by this Court. In the present case also, the award for Chahi and Barani land is a little bit higher than the compensation assessed in Surjit Singh's case (supra), whereas for Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin land, it is a little lessor. However, still on the basis of material on record even in the form of sale deeds, there is no justification to enhance the compensation for Banjar Kadim and Gair Mumkin kind of land as well. R.F.A. No. 3304 of 2006 [6] Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.1.2010 mk