R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 15.7.2010 1) R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 (O&M) Lahri Singh and others .. Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents 2) RFA No. 1775 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Mohan Lal and others .....Respondents 3 ) RFA No. 1778 of 2002 (O&M) and Cross Objections No. 14-CI of 2005 The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Chattar Singh and another .....Respondents 4 ) RFA No. 1779 of 2002 (O&M) The State of Haryana and others .....Appellants Versus Surajmal and another .....Respondents 5 ) RFA No. 1780 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Suraj Bhan .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 2] 6 ) RFA No. 1782 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Ram Kishan and others .....Respondents 7 ) RFA No. 1784 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Ganga Sahai and others .....Respondents 8 ) RFA No. 1785 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Devi Ram .....Respondents 9 ) RFA No. 1787 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Devi Ram and others .....Respondents 10) RFA No. 1788 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Ram Phal and others .....Respondents 11 ) RFA No. 1789 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Chatru @ Chattar Singh and another .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 3] 12 ) RFA No. 1790 of 2002 and Cross Objections No. 105-CI of 2009 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Dhan Raj and others .....Respondents 13 ) RFA No. 1791 of 2002 (O&M) The State of Haryana and others .....Appellants Versus Surajmal and others .....Respondents 14 ) RFA No.1792 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Shubh Ram .....Respondent 15 ) RFA No. 1793 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Smt. Chander and others .....Respondents 16 ) RFA No. 1794 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Umed Singh and others .....Respondents 17 ) RFA No. 1795 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Giani .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 4] 18 ) RFA No. 1797 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Tek Ram and others .....Respondents 19 ) RFA No. 1798 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Suneel and another .....Respondents 20 ) RFA No. 1799 of 2002 (O&M) The Haryana State and others .....Appellants Versus Mandir Shivji Barah Tamam Baba Mohan Nath Chela Braham Nath .....Respondent 21 ) RFA No. 1800 of 2002 (O&M) The State of Haryana and others .....Appellants Versus Bhagwana and another .....Respondents 22 ) RFA No. 2800 of 2002 (O&M) Ram Kishan and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 23 ) RFA No. 2801 of 2002 (O&M) Devi Ram .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 5] 24 ) RFA No. 2802 of 2002 (O&M) Chatru @ Chattar Singh .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 25 ) RFA No. 2803 of 2002 (O&M) Subh Ram .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 26) RFA No. 2804 of 2002 (O&M) Ram Phal and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 27 ) RFA No. 2805 of 2002 (O&M) Smt. Chander and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 28 ) RFA No. 2806 of 2007 (O&M) Devi Ram and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 29 ) RFA No. 2807 of 2002 (O&M) Tek Ram and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 6] 30 ) RFA No. 2808 of 2002 (O&M) Giani .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 31 ) RFA No. 2809 of 2002 (O&M) Suraj Bhan .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 32 ) RFA No. 2810 of 2002 (O&M) Umed Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 33 ) RFA No. 2812 of 2002 (O&M) Ganga Sahai and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 34 ) RFA No. 2813 of 2002 (O&M) Suraj Mal and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 35 ) RFA No. 2814 of 2002 (O&M) Bhagwana and another .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 7] 36 ) RFA No. 2815 of 2002 (O&M) Mohan Lal and others .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 37 ) RFA No. 2816 of 2002 (O&M) Suneel and another .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 38 ) RFA No. 2817 of 2002 (O&M) Mandir Shivji Barah Tamam Baba Mohan Nath Chela Braham Nath .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 39 ) RFA No.2818 of 2002 (O&M) Suraj Mal and another .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 40 ) RFA No. 2819 of 2002 (O&M) Dhan Raj .....Appellant Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents 41 ) RFA No. 2820 of 2002 (O&M) Chattar Singh and another .....Appellants Versus The Haryana State and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 8] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 41 appeals and cross objections, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals, filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals, filed by the State, prayer is for reduction in the compensation for the acquired land. The land owners have also filed cross- objections seeking enhancement for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2815 of 2002. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 11.3.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 24.24 acres of land, situated in village Sultanpur, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar for construction of New Sultanpur Minor. The same was followed by notification dated 22.5.1997, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') divided the land into two categories and assessed compensation @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre for Nehri land and ` 80,000/- per acre for Tal and gair mumkin land. 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 of the acquired land @ ` 1,25,000/- per acre. It is also pertinent to mention here that in some cases, the learned court below, vide its judgment dated 14.9.2001, upheld the award of the Collector and dismissed the reference petitions. In some cases, the land owners were also awarded 10% on account of severance. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below had failed to consider the sale deeds produced on record by the land owners in the form of Exs. P7 and P8. The land in question was strategically located and was quite fertile, when it was acquired. The amount of compensation, as assessed, is quite meager as compared to the value of land, as is evident from the sale deeds R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 9] produced on record by the land owners. Vide sale deed (Ex. P7), way back on 9.5.1994, a big chunk of land measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas, pertaining to village Sultanpur, was sold for a sale consideration of ` 4,57,750/-. This is in spite of the fact that the land was under lease for 99 years. Further reference was made to sale deed dated 27.1.1998 (Ex. P8), vide which 3 kanals and 9 marlas of land pertaining to village Ramayana was sold for a total consideration of ` 1,36,000/- . The submission was that though the aforesaid sale deed may be post acquisition transaction, but the time gap being not substantial, can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. It was further submitted that compensation on account of severance, as was awarded by the learned court below, is not commensurate with the loss suffered by the land owners. The learned court below has merely awarded 10% on account of severance, whereas it should not be less than 50%. 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 for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land, as the same cannot be said to be comparative in any manner whatsoever. The land pertaining to both the sale deeds is located in two different villages and not in the village in which the acquired land is situated. The land pertaining to both the sale deeds has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. The sale transaction in Ex. P8 is even otherwise after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Considering the aforesaid facts, the land owners are not entitled to any further increase in the amount of compensation than what has already been assessed by the learned court below. Rather, change in the category from Tal to Nehri in some cases was totally un-called for as the categorisation was done by the Collector on the basis of revenue record. As regards contention of learned counsel for the land owners regarding enhancement of compensation on account of severance, it was submitted that sufficient amount has already been awarded and the same does not call for any increase. The land owners have not suffered any loss on account of acquisition, rather, fair value of the acquired land has been further increased with the acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of New Sultanpur Minor. Even otherwise, at appropriate places, the State has also provided bridges to enable the land owners to approach other portion of the land without any difficulty. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State regarding change in category of the land, it was submitted that sufficient evidence was produced on record by the land owners to prove that the acquired land was in R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 10] fact canal irrigated. The documents in the form of Ex. P4 to Ex. P6 showing warabandi and further most of rectangles, through which the strip of land was passing through, had been described as Nehri in the revenue record. Once that evidence was produced on record, no illegality was committed by the learned court below in holding the entire land as Chahi. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court in the facts and circumstances of the present case considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners. The primary reliance is on sale deeds (Ex. P7 and Ex. P8). Vide sale deed (Ex. P7), land pertaining to village Sultanpur was sold, however, the same looses significance once the exact location of the land dealt with in the sale deed is not pointed out on any site plan produced on record by the land owners, even if the acquired land also pertained to the same village. Whatever has been noticed by the learned court below in paragraph 24 of the judgment is that even in site plan (Ex. R4) in which huge area of revenue estate of village Sultanpur has been shown, Rect. No. 307, out of which a portion of land was sold vide sale deed (Ex.P7) has not even been depicted thereon. The moment the land owners are not able to make out a case showing that the land pertaining to the sale deed relied upon by them is comparative to the acquired land, no reliance can be placed thereon. Similarly, sale deed (Ex. P8) also cannot be relied upon for three reasons, namely, that it pertains to village Ramayana, whereas the acquired land pertains to village Sultanpur. Even if it is considered that Ramayana may be a neighbouring village, but still to enable the court to consider the comparative value of both the chunks of land, the same was required to be pointed out on the site plan produced on record by the land owners, but that was not done. Even otherwise, the sale transaction is dated 27.1.1998, whereas acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 11.3.1997, i.e., nearly 10 months prior thereto. Once the evidence produced on record by the land owners to prove that value of the land on the date of acquisition was much more than what has been determined by the learned court below is not found to be relevant, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in discarding that evidence while determining the fair value of the land. As far as changing the category of land from Tal to Chahi is concerned, in my opinion, sufficient evidence was led by the land owners in the form of record from Canal Department showing warabandi, as the land in question R.F.A. No. 984 of 2002 [ 11] was shown to have been irrigated through Umra minor outlet No. 13995/R and Dhamana minor outlet No. 12000/Rat and further jamabandis produced on record for various Rectangle Nos., through which the strip of the acquired land was passing, indicated that most of the land falling under those Rectangles was described as Nehri in the revenue record. Once there was material on record to show that the land in question was in fact irrigated, in my opinion, no illegality was committed by the learned court below in holding the same to be Chahi as against Tal. As far as award of compensation on account of severance is concerned, the learned court below has awarded the same @ 10% to the land owners, except in the cases of Gram Panchayat Sultanpur, Johar Ram Dutt, Ram Phal and others, Bhobhal and others and Suraj Mal and others, where it was found that the land had not been divided into two parts. As is evident from record, such claim was made in R.F.A. Nos. 2800 to 2820 of 2002. The level of the distributory is always above the level of the land, which makes it difficult to irrigate or use the divided portions of the land to its optimum and also to approach the other portion of the land. The bridges are provided at a distance and the land owners have to take a longer route to reach other part of the land. Even if the State had provided for any bridges for crossing the other portion of the land, but still it cannot be disputed that it is very difficult to irrigate the land if it is divided into two parts, as the tubewell or other means of irrigation may be on one side and further through the pipe bridges, as is claimed to have been provided by the State at some places, it may be difficult to cross the other side along with heavy machinery. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, certain increase is required to be granted to the land owners as far as severance is concerned, which is determined at 20% as against 20% awarded by the learned court below. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed, whereas the appeals and cross objections filed by the land owners are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.7.2010 mk