R.F.A. No. 3010 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 17, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 3010 of 1992 Prem Singh .. Appellant v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 3077 of 1992 Dev Singh and another .. Appellants v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 2484 of 1993 The State of Punjab .. Appellant v. Prem Singh .. Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 2485 of 1993 The State of Punjab .. Appellant v. Dev Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for land owners. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned four appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. No. 3010 and 3077 of 1992 have been filed by the land owners for further enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 2484 and 2485 of 1993 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 3010 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 14.3.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of R.F.A. No. 3010 of 1992 [2] Punjab acquired the land in question situated in Village Sarkapra for construction of Chuni Distributory. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 16.9.1987, determined the market value at Rs. 62,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin kind of land. However, learned District Judge, Ropar, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value, as determined by the learned Court below for acquisition of land deserves to be increased further merely considering the fact that the land is strategically located. It has been noticed by the learned court below that the same is merely at a distance of ½ kilometer from the main road leading from Chandigarh to Sirhind and at a distance of one kilometer from the main road leading from Chuni-Morinda- Rajpura. Kharar is situated at a distance of 6 kilometers from the acquired land and SAS Nagar, Mohali is at a distance of 8 kilometers. A big combine factory as well as woollen and textile mills are within a radius of 4-6 kilometers and the value of the acquired land at the time was not less than Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre. He further submitted that the evidence led by the land owners in the form of a sale deeds were not considered at all and mere reliance was placed upon an earlier award pertaining to the acquisition of land for the same purpose. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land owners in the present case have been granted compensation at a rate much more than they were entitled to. The sale deeds produced by them were not relevant at all as the same pertained to the land of village Chuni Kalan, whereas the acquired land was forming part of revenue estate of Sarkapra. In fact, even the judgment relied upon by the learned court below in State of Punjab and others v. Khushal Singh etc., 1989(2) PLR 499 should not have been relied upon as the acquisition in the present case was made vide notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 14.3.1987. Further reliance was placed upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 2765 of 2001—Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, decided on 18.8.2004, wherein for acquisition of land for SYL Canal in Village Batta, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, this Court determined the value at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. Relying thereon, the submission is that the land owners in the present case are not entitled to any further increase. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred records. As far as location of the land in question is concerned, the same is R.F.A. No. 3010 of 1992 [3] not in dispute, but mere location thereof does not entitle any land owner to an amount of compensation orally claimed by him without there being any supporting documentary evidence to prove as to what was the value of the land on the date of acquisition. Even the statement that this court should take judicial notice of the fact that ever since the land was acquired, there had been phenomenon growth thereafter and today the land is not available there even for Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre is also totally misconceived for the simple reason that for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, what is to be seen is the value as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not what developments subsequently take place. Even the purpose for which the land is acquired or is put to use after acquisition were not be considered as relevant factors. As far as the evidence led by the land owners in the present case is concerned, all what has been produced is two sale deeds (Ex. P3 and Ex. P4). Both the sale deeds pertained to the land of village Chuni Kalan which is at a far off distance from the acquired land. As on the site plan produced on record, though boundaries of Village Chuni Kalan and other villages are shown, but the land of village Sarkapra is not evident. Accordingly, those were rightly not considered by the learned court below. In the absence thereof, the learned court below relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Khushal Singh's case (supra), where the value of chahi kind of land acquired for the purpose of construction of SYL Canal was determined at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre on the basis of an agreement arrived at between the then Chief Minister of Punjab and the Members of the Action Committee. The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., 1990(1) PLR 278. The reasoning, as adopted in Khushal Singh's case (supra), was further followed in Lal Chand (died) through LRs v. State of Punjab and another, 2005(2) All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 228, where further increase even for the time gap in the notification was also granted. Judgement in Jaswinder Kaur's case (supra) also goes against the claim of both the parties. As the compensation, determined by the learned court below, is based on the principles laid down by this Court, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.12.2008 mk