R. F. A No. 119 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 119 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.5.2011 Neki Ram ..... Appellant vs Land Acquisition Collector and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Mr. Amit Jain and Mr. J. L. Malhotra, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Anjum Ahmed, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of following appeals bearing; RFA Nos. 119, 148, 149, 164 to 166, 246, 305, 605, 716, 717, 728 to 737, 757, 818, 830 to 832 of 1996; and RFA Nos. 3061, 3071, 3829 of 1998, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The landowners have approached this court by filing appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 30.1.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Gurgaon, Hadbast No. 55, for development and utilisation thereof as link road connecting Sector-4 and 7 to Delhi Road. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31.1.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) vide award dated 27.3.1989 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,75,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 118/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned by the landowners in the present set of appeals. R. F. A No. 119 of 1996 2 Learned counsel for the landowners 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 this fact while assessing the market value of the acquired land. The land is surrounded by Gurgaon City, Sectors 4, 5 and 7 and the Railway station is located close to the acquired land. The land is fit for being used as commercial and residential purposes. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.1.1989. The learned court below in the present case has assessed the compensation for the acquired land by relying upon its earlier award, Ex. P-7, dated 29.1.1993 and Ex. R-2, dated 2.9.1994 vide which the market value of the land in the same area acquired vide notification dated 28.3.1985 under Section 4 of the Act for the same very purpose was determined. The valuation of land acquired earlier was subject matter of appeal before this court, wherein vide judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed in RFA No. 983 of 1993- Sewa Singh vs State of Haryana and another, the market value thereof was determined @ ` 87.50 per square yard. Placing reliance thereon, the submission is that since the value of the land in the present set of appeals was determined by the learned court below while relying upon its earlier awards, Ex. P-7 and Ex. R-2, for the land acquired vide notification dated 28.3.1985, situated in the vicinity and for the same very purpose, the value of the acquired land in question should be assessed at the rate assessed by this court by granting further increase @ 15% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications which is nearly 46 months, keeping in view the potentiality and location of the land. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the court below after considering the evidence led by the parties. The area was not as much developed as has been stated by the counsel for the landowners. The land was being used only for agricultural purposes. Rather it is after the construction of road that development activities in the area started. It is the left out portion of the earlier acquired land and the court below has granted much more compensation than the landowners deserved. The award of the Collector was just and fair, however, as the State has not filed appeals, the award of the learned court below be upheld and the appeals be dismissed. R. F. A No. 119 of 1996 3 As far as the assessment of compensation by the learned court below on the basis of its earlier award and thereafter enhancement thereof by this court in Sewa Singh's case (supra) is not disputed by the learned State counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is not disputed that the acquired land is in the form of a strip because the same has been acquired for the purpose of construction of road from Sector 4 and 7 to Delhi Road. The land acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 28.3.1985 also belongs to revenue estate of Gurgaon. It is admitted case of the parties that the land in question is located in the vicinity where the land acquired vide notification dated 28.3.1985 is located. The learned court below by granting increase @ 12% per annum on the value assessed for the land acquired vide notification dated 28.3.1985 had assessed the market value of the land in question @ ` 118/- per square yard. It is also admitted that this court in Sewa Singh's case (supra), had further enhanced the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 28.3.1985 to ` 87.50 per square yard. The present land was acquired vide notification dated 30.1.1989 i.e. after about 46 months from the earlier notification. If the value of the land, on the basis of which the compensation for the land in the present acquisition has been determined, was increased by this court in Sewa Singh's case (supra), then a reasonable increase for the time gap in between two acquisitions at the same rate can very well be granted in the present case also. Keeping in view the time gap of 46 months years between the two acquisitions, in my opinion, increase @ 12% per annum at ` 87.50/- would be reasonable. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land in the present case will come out to ` 127.75 per square yard, which is rounded off to ` 128/- per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 10.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge