RFA No.1583 of 1995 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1583 of 1995 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 Ajit Singh and others ..Appellants. Vs. The Punjab State and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This judgment shall dispose of 13 Regular First appeals bearing Nos.1583 to 1587 of 1995, 1628, 2082, 2124, 2413 to 2417 of 1995, all filed by the land owners/claimants being aggrieved against the award of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 6.4.1995. Since the law and facts in these appeals are identical, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, however, the facts are being taken from RFA No.1583 of 1995 titled as Ajit Singh and others Vs. The Punjab state and others. Land measuring 249 Kanals 11 Marlas in the revenue estate of village Hardo Bathwala, H.B.No.1330, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur was proposed to be acquired with the issuance of a notification under Section 4 and notification of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') dated 24.3.1983 published in the Govt. Gazette on 20.5.1983 at public expense for public purpose, namely, for the construction RFA No.1583 of 1995 -2 - of by-pass road. The Land Acquisition Collector, PWD (B&R) Punjab, Jalandhar (for short `the Collector') vide his award dated 23.9.1986 determined the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.27,772/- per acre for all kinds of land besides awarding compensation in respect of the trees. The land-owners were not satisfied with the award. They filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was inter alia alleged that market value prevailing in respect of the acquired land ranged between Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per marla; acquired land yields two crops; it is adjacent to the inhabited area (abadi) of Gurdaspur Town; land is situated on Dorangala–Gurdaspur road near the brick kiln, the land is left in pieces and cannot yield good crop. The Collector has not considered the potential value and the surrounding developments. The respondent-State contested the Reference Applications admitting the acquisition but denied the averments made in the claim petition. It was asserted that the compensation awarded by the Collector is in accordance with the prevalent market rate. It was admitted that pacca Hardo-Chhani road goes near the acquired land but denied that the inhabited area of Gurdaspur town is near the acquired land. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. The land owners examined Manmohan Singh, Patwari Halqa Gurdaspur as PW1, Pritam Singh claimant as PW2, tendered copy of Aks Shajra Ex.P1 and sale deeds Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. The respondent-State examined Des Raj Gupta, Naib Tehsildar as RW1. They also tendered documents namely Aks Shajra Ex.R1, sale deeds Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 and copy of the award in LAC No.6 of 1988 titled as Jagir Singh and others Vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and another decided on 24.7.1990 as Ex.R6. After considering the evidence on record, RFA No.1583 of 1995 -3 - the learned Reference Court redetermined the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. Sh.R.K.Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has palpably erred in not appreciating the sale deeds Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 tendered by the appellants/land owners. Sale deeds Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 are pertaining to small plots of land. According to sale deed Ex.P2, plot measuring 72'/72'x31'-3”/31'-3” was sold for a consideration of Rs.6000/- on 8.4.1993. Sale deed, a copy of which is Ex.P3, shows that on 27.1.1978, an area measuring 15/15x15/15 Karams was sold for Rs.9000/-. According to sale deed Ex.P4, plot measuring 16 Marlas was sold on 5.4.1983 for Rs.12,000/-. On 8.4.1983, plot measuring 72'/72x18'-9/18'-9' was sold for Rs.3500/- vide sale deed dated 30.12.1983 copy of which is Ex.P6, plot measuring 6 Marlas was sold for a consideration of Rs.6000/-. The contention of the counsel for the appellants is not acceptable that the aforesaid sale deeds have not been considered by the Reference Court. In fact, the aforesaid sale deeds have been considered and it has been observed by the Reference Court that the location of the sale deeds are not shown in Aks Shajra Ex.P1 relied upon by the land owners/claimants. It was held that it can not be known from the sale deeds or even from Aks Shajra Ex.P1 as to whether the said plots sold vide sale deeds Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 are situated near the acquired land or not. On the other hand, from Aks Shajra Ex.R1 and sale deeds Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 pertaining to the land sold, the area of village Hardo Bathwala is shown. Instances of sale relied upon by the respondents are of RFA No.1583 of 1995 -4 - sale deeds No.1386, 2511, 2839, 2805 dated 3.6.1982, 29.6.1982, 9.7.1982 and 7.7.1982 through which land measuring 14 Kanals 6 Marlas, 13 Kanals 5 Marlas, 11 Kanals 5 Marlas and 11 Kanals 6 Marlas was sold for Rs.39,325/- Rs.40,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively. It has been observed by the Reference Court that the sale deeds relied upon by the State are prior to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and the maximum average price per acre from the sale deeds came to Rs.24,194.50 P. The learned Reference Court even did not rely upon the sale deeds Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 as it was found to be less than the award of the Collector and also on the ground that the respondents themselves have relied upon sale deed Ex.R6 whereby the market value of land of village Nabipur which was acquired on the same day for the public purpose, was assessed @ Rs.45,000/- per acre. Thus, finding that the location of the acquired land of village Hardo Bathwala is better than the land of village Nabipur in view of the statements of PW1 Manmohan Singh and PW2 Pritam Singh and even RW1, the Reference Court awarded Rs.50,000/- per acre to the land owners/claimants. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the award of the Reference Court and the same is hereby upheld. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals are thus, found to be devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 12.12.2008 Judge Meenu