R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1995 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1995 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.9.2010 Avtar Singh and others .. Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2260 and 2361 of 1995, 20, 21, 22, 30 to 32 and 586 of 1996, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1995. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.4.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Punjab acquired 23 acres, 5 kanals and 2 marlas of land, situated in village Abehpur Beli, Hadbast No. 47, Tehsil and District Ropar for construction of District Jail at Ropar. The same was followed by notification dated 15.4.1987, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the compensation as under: Chahi ` 65,000/- per acre Barani ` 50,000/- per acre Banjar Jadid ` 45,000/- per acre Banjar Qadim ` 45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin ` 45,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 1,00,000/- per R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1995 [2] acre for Barani land and ` 80,000/- per acre for Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin kind of land. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals by the land owners. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record by them showing that value of the land, as assessed by the Collector, was not just and fair and they were entitled to at least ` 10,00,000/- per acre as compensation therefor. The submission was that the land in question is abutting Bela-Ropar road, which is quite close to Ropar. The area in the vicinity was being used for residential and commercial purposes. The abadi of Ropar was fast expanding towards that side. One hotel and milk dairy was located quite close to the acquired land. Even Improvement Trust, Ropar had also acquired the land in this area for urbanisation. It was further submitted that initially the land was supposed to be acquired by issuing a notification in the year 1979, however, on a challenge, the same was quashed by this court. Subsequent thereto, fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.4.1986. It was for this reason that during this period, there was no genuine sale transaction in the area. Referring to sale deeds (Ex. A7 and Ex. A8), whereby 8 marlas of land was sold for ` 11,858/-, it was submitted that the award of the learned court below deserves to be modified and compensation be awarded to the land owners in terms of the value depicted in the aforesaid sale deeds. On a query by the court as to whether the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds has been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record, the answer was in negative. It was further submitted that categorisation of land as Chahi, Barani, Banjar Jadid, Banjar Qadim and Gair Mumkin, done by the learned court below, while assessing the amount of compensation should be set aside and the entire land should be assessed at one rate, i.e., highest rate. For the purpose, reliance was placed upon Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991 PLJ 20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deeds sought to be relied upon by the land owners have no relevance with the acquired land, as those were not for the comparative pieces of land. In any case, those have not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. In fact, the land is situated close to Sagrao Nadi. It used to be flooded during rainy season and for that reason, the soil was also quite sandy. One of the witnesses produced by the land owners, namely, Sada Ram (PW2) admitted in his cross-examination that there was 6-7 feet of water due to breach of Nadi in their village. In the R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1995 [3] absence of any evidence on record, in fact the land owners were not entitled to any increase whatsoever. However, still the learned court below was quite generous in enhancing the compensation by relying upon a judgment of this court pertaining to acquisition of land for SYL canal in the area, where the compensation was awarded in terms of the settlement arrived at with the Chief Minister of Punjab at that time. The award of the learned court below in any case does not call for any interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred records. As far as location of the land is concerned, there is no dispute that the same is located 3-4 kilometers from Ropar, close to Sagrao Nadi and it was also admitted by the claimants themselves that due to Nadi, the area used to be water logged and the soil was sandy. The land pertaining to the sale deeds, sought to be relied upon by the land owners, has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record. In any case, the area dealt with therein being merely 8 marlas, the same has to be in some residential area, which cannot be compared with the acquired land. The learned court below, while assessing the compensation, relied upon a judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Surjan Singh etc., (1990-1) PLR 278, wherein while relying upon the agreement with the then Chief Minister of Punjab regarding valuation of the land acquired for SYL canal in the area, the compensation was enhanced to ` 1,25,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 75,000/- per acre for Barani land and ` 55,000/- per acre for Banjar land. Considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award as far as valuation of the land is concerned. Even the contention of learned counsel for the land owners that the entire land should be valued at one highest rate and the categorisation thereof should be done away with has to be merely noticed and rejected for the reason that there is no clinching evidence on record to opine that the acquired land was fit for urbanisation or it was part of the municipal limits of Ropar. In fact, considering the fact that it used to be water logged, the same may not be even fit for agriculture. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.9.2010 mk R.F.A. No. 2260 of 1995 [4]