RFA No. 2046 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2046 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.12.2011 Gopal Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. G. S. Bal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General, Punjab with Mr. Alok Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded to them by the learned court below for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 7.3.1984, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab sought to acquire 1.65 acres of land, situated in the revenue estate of village Gagowali, HB No. 425, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur for construction of Kunjar Drain from RD18700 to 20000 and RD 22112 to 28000-A. The same was followed by notification dated 25.2.1985, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed compensation @ ` 30,000/- per acre for Nehri land and ` 8,000/- per acre for Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below upheld the award of the Collector. RFA No. 2046 of 1990 [2] Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that as is evident from the record, the Collector's rate in the area way back in the year 1972 was ` 15,000/- per acre. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case having been issued on 7.3.1984, the land owners deserve to be granted increase thereon at least @ 12% per annum. Even otherwise, the rates fixed by the Collector are normally on lower side as compared to the market rate. The land owners in the present case have been awarded compensation merely @ ` 30,000/- per acre. Sale deed (Ex. A1) registered on 23.12.1986, whereby 5 kanals and 7 marlas of land of village Sakri was sold for a sum of ` 40,000/- also shows the trend of prices of land in the area. It was further submitted that revenue estate of village Sakri is 10-12 killas away from the acquired land and the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. A1) is 5-7 killas away from the boundary line of village Gagowali. He further submitted that with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of drain, the land of the land owners has been divided into two parts, which made it difficult for them to cultivate two portions of land and use the irrigation facilities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it being a case of no evidence, no illegality has been committed by the court below in dismissing the land references filed by the land owners. Even if the Collector's minimum rates fixed in the year 1972 are considered as base and increase thereon is granted @ 7-8% per annum, value of the land will come out to what has already been awarded by the Collector. There is no question of grant of increase in 1970s @ 12% per annum. Even Hon'ble the Supreme Court has deprecated assessment of compensation merely by granting increase for a gap of more than 5-6 years. There is no evidence produced on record by the land owners to show that in what manner they have suffered on account of severance. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. As is evident from a perusal of the impugned award, the land owners produced three sale deeds (Ex. A1 to Ex. A3) on record. The aforesaid sale deeds were registered much after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. These are pertaining to the RFA No. 2046 of 1990 [3] land of different revenue estates. There is no site plan on record to show the relevance thereof vis-a-vis the acquired land. Hence all the sale deeds were rightly rejected by the court below on consideration. As far as reliance on Collector's rates in the year 1972 and grant of increase thereon @ 12% per annum till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7.3.1984 is concerned, the same also cannot be said to be appropriate method for calculation of compensation. The Collector's rates for registration of sale deeds are normally notified annually. The land owners have not produced on record anything to show what were the Collector's rates between 1972 till 1984. There is no material on record to show that there was increase in the value of land during the interregnum period at the rate, sought to be claimed by the land owners. However, award of ` 30,000/- per acre to the land owners shows that there is an increase of 8% per annum simple if the value of land awarded to the land owners is considered vis-a-vis the Collector's rates in the year 1972. In my opinion, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. As far as award of damages on account of severance is concerned, it has been noticed by the court below that the land owners have not led any evidence to show as to how they were affected with the acquisition. No site plan has been produced to show the location of two separated portions of land or that the land on either side has been deprived of irrigation facilities. In the absence of any clinching evidence, no case for grant of damages on account of severance is made out. Accordingly, the claim to that effect is also rejected. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 21.12.2011 mk