R.F.A. No. 3320 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3320 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Mam Chand and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3320, 3380 to 3395, 3406 and 4150 of 2002 and cross objections No. 38 to 44, 51 and 53-CI of 2005, 109-CI of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 3320 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 9.15 acres of land in village Dadasiya, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad in Hadbast No. 147 for external water supply for tubewell and staff quarters. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section R.F.A. No. 3320 of 2002 [2] 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 70/- per square yard. It is this award of the learned court below, which has been impugned before this court. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the evidence produced by the land owners on record for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. It has failed to consider the location of the acquired land and also the fact that it was a small left out portion located in different pockets which was acquired subsequently, otherwise the earlier acquisition was in the year 1995. Sale deed (Ex. P3) pertaining to land of village Dadasiya, whereby 10 marlas of land was sold for ` 75,000/- has not been considered at all. He further submitted that even if the award (Ex. P7) pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 22.12.1995 of village Badshahpur is concerned, there being a gap of two years and five months, increase of 29% should have been awarded thereon and not merely ` 20/- per square yard, as have been added by the learned court below. For the acquisition of land of village Badshahpur, the learned court below had assessed the compensation @ ` 150/- per square yard, which to the knowledge of the learned counsel attained finality as no appeal was preferred by any of the parties. It was further submitted that boundaries of village Badshahpur and the acquired land adjoin each other. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deed (Ex. R13) produced by the State pertaining to the same area, which was registered on 22.2.1993 was totally ignored by the learned court below. Vide aforesaid sale deed, 8 kanals and one marla of land was sold for ` 1,05,000/-. However, he also did not dispute the fact that the award pertaining to acquisition of land of village Badshahpur, which has been relied upon by the learned court below for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land attained finality as he has no information about its challenge any further by any of the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Site plan (Ex. R18) produced on record shows the location of the acquired land. A big chunk of land, which apparently has been acquired R.F.A. No. 3320 of 2002 [3] for the purpose of staff quarters or other allied use is located close to the village abadi and abutting a rasta. At seven other places, small portions of land have been acquired, which are meant to be used for the purpose of digging tubewells. All these portions of land are located adjoining to some rasta. The learned court below has placed reliance upon award (Ex. P7) pertaining to acquisition of land of village Badshahpur, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Sewerage Treatment Plant vide notification dated 22.12.1995. For the aforesaid acquisition, the learned court below had assessed the compensation @ ` 150/- per square yard and the learned court below considering the time gap of 2 years and 5 months in between the two acquisitions had added ` 20/- per square yard thereon while assessing the compensation @ ` 170/- per square yard. The aforesaid amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below is just and fair. Though from the site plan (Ex. R18), it is evident that boundaries of Badshahpur are adjoinng to village Dadasiya, but the land acquired vide notification dated 22.12.1995 has not been located thereon. Still considering the fact that village boundaries are adjoining, the learned court below granted increase of ` 20/- per square yard which, in the opinion of this court, is just and fair. Even if the case of the land owners is considered with reference to sale deed (Ex. P3) relied upon by them, still even if the genuineness thereof is not in dispute, the consideration paid therein for a plot of 10 marlas is 247.93 per square yard and the acquired land being a big chunk, even if a cut of 33% is applied, the same would come out to ` 166.11 per square yard. The same is quite close to the amount of compensation already awarded by the learned court below. The location of the said plot has not been pointed out on any site plan by the learned counsel. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the appeals and cross objections filed by the State or the land owners. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 6.1.2011 mk R.F.A. No. 3320 of 2002 [4]