RFA No.1268 of 1991 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1268 of 1991 Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 Sadhu Singh and others ..Appellants. Vs. The State of Haryana ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG Haryana for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of 6 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.1268 to 1272 and 2009 of 1991 filed by the claimants against the impugned award of the Reference Court dated 14.1.1991 whereby their reference has been dismissed. Since identical question of law and facts are involved therein, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts, however, are taken from RFA No.1268 of 1991. Land measuring 6.62 acres situated in village Rohan was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') dated 14.5.1988 published on 16.5.1988 followed by notification of declaration issued and published under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.5.1988, at public expenses, for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of Drain No.E & G in villages Phaggu, Dessu Khurd and RFA No.1268 of 1991 -2 - Rohan. In RFA No.1268 of 1991, land of the appellants measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.13, Killa No.23/2(1-9) and Rectangle No.21, Killa No.4/2(2-11) and 7/2(1-4) situated in village Rohan, Tehsil Sirsa, in RFA No.1269 of 1991 land of the appellants measuring 2 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Rect.No.13, Killa No.24/2(1-3) and Rect.No.21, Killa No.15/1/2(1-6) situated in village Rohan, Tehsil Sirsa, in RFA No.1270 of 1991 land of the appellants measuring 7 Kanals and 13 Marlas comprised in Rect.No.13, Killa No.9/2(2-11), 12/2(1-14), 13/1(0- 17), 18/2(2-11) situated in village Rohan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, in RFA No.1271 of 1991 land of the appellants measuring 12 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Rect.No.12, Killa No.3/2 (1-10), 4/2(3-12), 5/2(3-12) and Rect.No.13, Killa No.10/1(1-2), 1/2 (2-9) and 2/2(0-4) situated in village Rohan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, in RFA No.1272 of 1991 land of the appellants measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas comprised in Rect.No.7, Killa No.18/2(3-4) and 23/2 (3-4) situated in village Rohan, Tehsil and District Sirsa and in RFA No.2009 of 1991 land of the appellants measuring 12 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Rect.No.7, Killa No.9/2 (0-13), 10/2(4-1), 12/2(3-12), 19/2 (2-17), 11/2 (0-10), Rect.No.8, Killa No.6/1 (0-16), situated in village Rohan, Tehsil and District Sirsa is involved. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa (for short `the Collector') vide his Award No.12 dated 14.6.1989 while considering the entire land as 'Sem' (water logged) awarded compensation @ Rs.10,000/- per acre on the basis of rates supplied by the District Collector, Sirsa. In the award announced under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector has specifically mentioned that the land is not fit for cultivation RFA No.1268 of 1991 -3 - and no crop was sown from the past many years and as such, no transaction for the land has been made. The Collector also observed that average sale price of Barani land during the past one year comes to Rs.12,000/- per acre. Provoked by inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was categorically mentioned that the land is recorded as Barani in the revenue record, therefore, it should be at the most considered as Barani and should not have been treated as `Sem' by the Collector of his own. The claim was refuted by the State of Haryana and as per the averment made in para 4, it was denied that land is Barani rather it was alleged that the entire area is water logged and is not fit for cultivation. It is also alleged that no crop whatsoever was sown by the appellant in the suit land which is apparent from the entries contained in the khasra girdawaris and jamabandis. In support of their claim, both the parties led their respective evidence. Besides the oral evidence, the claimants also produced on record revenue record which comprised of jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris. Jamabandis Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, Ex.P5 to Ex.P7, Ex.P9, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 were produced whereas Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P4, Ex.P10 and Ex.P13 were produced besides sale deed Ex.P14. The learned Reference Court discussed the statement of Teja Singh, Revenue Patwari Halqa Maleri who appeared as PW6 and Mahinder Nath, Patwari, who appeared as RW2 and perused the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 to come to a conclusion that the land in question is water logged because it is never shown to have been cultivated by the claimants and as such, the learned Reference Court maintained the award of the Collector. Sh.Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the appellants has RFA No.1268 of 1991 -4 - vehemently contended that there is a complete misreading of the evidence by the learned Reference Court because PW6 Teja Singh, Revenue Patwari has categorically stated in examination-in-chief that there was mustard crop in 4 kanals of land and has given various khasra numbers regarding which he has specifically stated that there was no water logging in that area. He also stated that border area of village Rori, which might be water logged, is not the area, which is in dispute. He also referred to the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 on record in which it has been categorically mentioned that land in question is Barani in nature and somewhere it is also shown to be Nehri. In Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P4 and Ex.P7, which are available on record at Pages 43 and 49 are of the year 1985-86 in which there are entries of the crop of cotton, wheat, gram and Barley. As against this, Sh.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG Haryana appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that though the finding has come in the impugned order that the land is not shown to be water logged and it is shown to be Barani but as it is not shown to be cultivated, therefore, it is presumed that the land in question is water logged. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled that in view of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record until and unless it is proved to the contrary. There is no documentary evidence produced on record by the respondents that the land in question was water logged or the entry recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1984- 85 was erroneous. Any oral evidence in this regard led by the respondent may be in the statement of RW1 Pawan Kumar, SDO or in the statement of RFA No.1268 of 1991 -5 - RW2 Mahinder Nath is meaningless because oral evidence cannot belie the veracity of the documentary evidence, which is already available on record. Moreover, the learned Reference Court has observed that from documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13, it is not shown that the acquired land is water logged rather it is shown that the land is Barani. Therefore, the finding recorded that since it is lying uncultivated, it is presumed to be water logged, is in my view is based upon surmises and conjectures and cannot be sustained. Thus, from the evidence available on record it is held that the acquired area was Barani in nature and not water logged. Now question is that if the land is Barani then what should be the compensation which should have been awarded by the Reference Court. Since the Reference Court has dismissed the reference only on the ground that land has been found to be `Sem' (water logged), therefore, compensation awarded by the Collector is sufficient, I find it appropriate to remand the case to the Reference Court to decide about the question of compensation of the acquired land considering it to be Barani. Thus, the impugned order dated 14.1.1991 passed by the Reference Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reference Court to decide the compensation of the land afresh, which is held by this Court as Barani, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court in person or through their counsel on 22.4.2009. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 23.3.2009 Judge Meenu