RFA No.290 of 1991 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 290 of 1991 Decided on November 18,2008. State of Haryana and another -- Appellants vs. Smt.Ram Piari and others --Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain. Present: Mr.H.S.Hooda, A.G,Haryana,,with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra,Sr.DAG,Haryana, for the appellants None for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing RFA Nos. 290,291 and 685 of 1991, filed by the State of Haryana, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Land measuring 8 acres, situated in village Makho Shoran, Tehsil and District, Sirsa, was proposed to be acquired with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') dated 25.3.1987, for the public purpose, namely for RFA No.290 of 1991 2 constructing Baruwali Distributory. The notification of declaration of acquisition of land was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 01.9.1987 and published in Official Gazette on 05.9.1987. Vide his award No.20 dated 21.8.1989, for the year 1988-89, the District Revenue Officer-cum Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.15,000/- per acre for Nehri, Chahi, and Gair Mumkin Khal, Gair Mumkin Rasta and @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for Barani land. In the objections under Section 18 of the Act, discontented landowners /claimants claimed the value of the land @ Rs.50,000/- per acre. They stated that the acquired land is situated near the abadi deh of village Makho Shoran, near the village School and Nathusarai Chopta Mandi. The landowners' claim was contested and it was averred by the respondents/State that the compensation that has been awarded by the Collector is just and equitable. Both the parties led their respective evidence. The claimants examined Amar Singh as PW-1,who stated that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the potential value of the acquired land was Rs.50,000/- per acre. He also stated that the acquired land RFA No.290 of 1991 3 was Nehri as well as irrigated by tubewell. One Birbal sold his land vide sale deeds Exs. P-1 and P-2 @ Rs.50,000/- per acre, but he got the sale deeds executed @ Rs. 22,500/- per acre in order to save stamp and registration expenses. He deposed further that land shown in sale deeds Exs. P-1 and P-2 is of uneven type and is of inferior quality in comparison to the acquired land. In cross examination this witness deposed that the sale deeds Ex.P- 1 and P-2 were executed in the year 1987 and is situated at a distance of 8/10 killas away from the acquired land. He denied the suggestion that prevalent market price of the acquired land is more than Rs.13/14,000/- per acre. Lakhmi Chand appeared as PW-2 and deposed that prevalent market vaue of the acquired land was Rs.50,000/- per acre. He further stated that the distance of the land in question is 5/7 killas from the village and Nathusari Chopta Mandi is at a distance of about 1 kilometer from the acquired land. He further deposed that there are College, I.T.I, Office of the Panchayat Samiti and a Primary Health Centre near the acquired land. On the other hand, the respondent-State relied upon the sale deeds Exs. R-1 to R-6. The average prices of these sale deeds was found to be Rs.12,000/- Rs.13,000/- per acre. After appreciating the entire evidence on record, the learned Reference Court awarded Rs. 20,000/- per acre RFA No.290 of 1991 4 for nehri and enhanced only Rs.5000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Collector. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the landowners/claimants. Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior D.A.G.Haryana, appearing for the appellants-State has vehemently argued that the sale deeds Exs. R1- to R-6 pertain to small piece of land and are post notification having been executed after three months of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Reference Court should have applied a reasonable cut on the amount desired out of the sale deeds Exs.P-1 and P-2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants -State and perused the record. I do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants because the period of three months from notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, of the sale deeds relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not much and the said sale deeds Exs. P-1 and P-2 whose genuineness and bonafide has not even been doubted is safe base for assessing the market value prevailing on the date of notification issued under Section of the Act. Since only Rs.5000/- has been increased over and above the amount awarded by the RFA No.290 of 1991 5 Collector, I do not find any reason to apply the deduction. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. November 18,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge