R.F.A. No. 958 of 1983 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) R.F.A. No. 958 of 1983 Date of decision: August 29, 2008 Ratia .. Appellant v. State of Haryana .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 959 of 1983 Saro Chand and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 960 of 1983 Satbir and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: None for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above-mentioned three appeals as the same arise out of the common award dated 17.3.1983, passed by Additional District Judge, Jind. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 958 of 1983. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent acquired an area measuring 75 kanals 8 marlas of land vide notification No. 9133/D-2 dated 16.5.1974 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of CIA Staff. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the value of the acquired land at Rs. 13,080/- per acre. To the value so assessed by the Collector, the appellants filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge for consideration. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 17.3.1983 determined the value of the land as on the date of acquisition at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. R.F.A. No. 958 of 1983 [ 2] When the cases were taken up for hearing, no one appeared for the appellants. Even on 8.1.2008 and 28.1.2008 also, the appellants remained unrepresented. Keeping in view the fact that the appeals pertain to the year 1983, the same were taken up for final disposal. In the absence of assistance by the counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State was heard. The finding regarding location of the land, as recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in para 5 of the judgment, remained uncontroverted. The same is to the effect that the land in question is adjacent to Police Lines; about two killas away from Civil Station; College and Hospital are near the acquired land; Housing Board and Defence Colony are in front of the acquired land across the road and further that the same falls within the municipal limits of Jind and that there is potential of the land being used for housing purposes. Sale deed (Ex. P.1) pertaining to the year 1969 was ignored by the court below for the reason that the land being part thereof was situated two kilometers away from the acquired land. Similar was the position with regard to Ex. P.4. Primary reliance placed by the Court below was on Ex. P.2 and P.3. Ex.P.2 is a copy of award dated 21.12.1973 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind before the acquisition of the land in question, vide which for the land acquired for the purpose of Civil Station in the year 1969, the compensation was determined at Rs. 20/- per square yard. It is undisputed fact on record that Civil Station is situated just two killas away from the land in question acquired for construction of CIA Staff. As regards Ex. P.3 is concerned, in respect of land acquired vide notification dated 7.9.1976, a sum of Rs. 40/- per square yard had been awarded by the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Jind vide award dated 26.2.1981. Though the learned court below referred to and relied upon the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge for acquisition of land in the year 1969 for Civil Station where the amount of compensation was determined at Rs. 20/- per square yard, but still without recording any reason for deviation therefrom even though the land in question is situated just two killas away from the land which was acquired in 1969, the compensation was assessed at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the State did not place any material on record to state that award dated 21.12.1973 passed by the learned Additional District Judge with regard to the land acquired for Civil Station in the year 1969 was challenged further. Similar is the position with regard to award dated 26.2.1981 passed by the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Jind where on account of acquisition of land in the year 1976, compensation was determined at Rs. 40/- per square yard. From the record, it could not be found as to at what place the land in question in award dated R.F.A. No. 958 of 1983 [ 3] 26.2.1981 is situated. Still the fact remains that both the awards regarding 1969 acquisition as well as 1976 acquisition were accepted by the State. In addition to this, the future potential of the land also cannot be disputed, keeping in view the facts found by the learned court below regarding location of the land and also the development in the vicinity, where Civil Station, College, Hospital, Housing Board and Defence Colony were already there. Merely because this chunk of land was being used for agricultural purposes at the relevant time would not be a factor to hold that the land did not have any future potential, especially when the same is within the municipal limits of Jind. Accordingly, in my considered view, the compensation of the acquisition of land payable to the appellants should not be less than what was determined by learned Additional District Judge, Jind in award dated 21.12.1973 for the land acquired in the year 1969, the location of which is just two killas away from the land in question. The notification for acquisition of the land in the present case is nearly five years after acquisition of land in the aforesaid award. If the period of five years is taken into consideration, another sum of Rs. 5/- can be added to the sum awarded for acquisition in the year 1969. Accordingly, Rs. 25/- per square yard can very well be granted to the appellants as compensation. Learned counsel for the State has not pointed out that any other appeal arising out of the same acquisition is pending or decided by this Court. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed with costs throughout. The value of the acquired land is determined at the rate of Rs. 25/- per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 29, 2008 mk