RFA No. 2030 of 1994 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2030 of 1994 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2010 Kuldip Singh and others .. Appellants vs State of Haryana and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A. K. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 2030 to 2034, 2219, 2220 and 2557 of 1994, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The landowners have been filed the appeals before this court seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 2030 of 1994. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 7.85 acres in the area of village Meham, District Rohtak, was acquired vide notification dated 16.11.1987 published on 8.12.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of Meham bye-pass, which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 22.3.1988 published in the Government Gazette dated 5.4.1988. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 28,000/- per acre for nehri/bagicha nehri and abadi, ` 22,000/- per acre for barani and ` 15,000/- per acre for banjar/ gair mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide award dated 23.4.1994, keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to ` 46,000/- per acre for nehri, ` 36,000/- per acre for barani and ` 29,000/- per acre for bhud or banjar kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the learned court below has not assessed the fair value of the acquired land by referring to the sale- RFA No. 2030 of 1994 (2) deeds produced on record by the landowners which clearly depicted that value of the land in the area was not less than ` 72,000/- per acre as is evident from sale- deeds, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-8. The land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of bye-pass which was located close to the abadi. The entire acquired land was situated within the municipal limits. The area around the acquired land had already been developed and was being used for residential-commercial purposes. The fact that the land in the area was being sold in small plots clearly establishes that the value of the land in the area had to be assessed in square yards and not per acre. Learned counsel for the landowners further submitted that the learned court below had committed illegality in averaging the price of the sale- deeds produced on record by the landowners and the State in fact the sale-deeds produced by the State were required to be rejected as the consideration paid in those sale-deeds is below to the award of the Collector rates. Relying upon the judgment of this court in LPA No. 211 of 1991 Chander Parkash vs The State of Haryana and others decided on 5.1.1994, it was submitted that even the categorisation of the land made by the learned court below as Nehri, Barani and Banjar is required to be set aside considering the fact that it was located within the municipal limits of Meham and the same was fit for urbanization. Once the land is fit for urbanization and not meant for agricultural use, it lost its significance of being Nehri, Barani and Banjar, as for construction activities the same has no relevance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that land pertaining to none of the sale-deeds has been located on any of the site plan produced on record by the landowners. The land acquired for construction of a bye-pass was in fact located outside the residential locality. It had no potential value at the time of acquisition. The manner in which the assessment of the value has been done by the learned court below is quite reasonable. The consideration paid in the relevant sale-deeds produced on record by the landowners and the State has been rightly averaged by the court below. Once the revenue record shows that the quality of the land as Nehri, Barani or Banjar, there was no reason to treat the same of one category. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant referred record, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in assessing the market value of the acquired land. The learned court below had averaged the sale consideration paid in sale-deeds Ex. P- 2, Ex. P-8, Ex. R-9, and Ex. R-11, sought to be relied upon by the landowners as well as by the State. There was quite a difference between the value shown therein. Not only this, the sale-deeds Ex. R-9 and Ex. R-11 which were relied upon by the RFA No. 2030 of 1994 (3) learned State were not pertaining to the land situated within the municipal limits whereas the sale-deeds relied upon by the landowners, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-8, were pertaining to the land situated within the municipal limits. Considering the advantages and disadvantages to the land forming part of the sale-deeds produced by both State as well as the landowners, the learned court below averaged the same which is quite reasonable and does not call for any interference. As far as the contention of the landowners regarding categorisation of land is concerned, in my opinion, the same is meritorious. It is undisputed fact on record that the acquired land is located within the municipal limits. Meaning thereby that it had the potential for being used for residential or commercial purposes. Once the land had potential for being used for residential or commercial purposes and was located within the municipal limits, to treat the same as nehri, barani or banjar would be totally unreasonable. Accordingly, it is held that the entire chunk of land shall be awarded the same rates i.e. highest rate awarded by the learned court below i.e. ` 46,000/- per acre. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award, all the appeals are disposed of. 9.9.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge