RFA No. 483 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 483 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.5.2011 Gurmail Singh alias Gola ...Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Harsh Garg, Advocate for Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh K. Kataria, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 483, 610 and 615 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The aforesaid appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Bhutana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 0-91000 off taking from RD 340300- L Bhakra Main Line for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State of Haryana on 18.8.2005. The land is situated within the revenue estate of village Dandota, Hadbast No. 9, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 24.2.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below upheld the award of the Collector in respect of valuation of land and also awarded ` 50,000/- more to the landowners whose land was bifurcated. Aggrieved against RFA No. 483 of 2011 (2) the award of the learned court below, the landowners are in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the court below has not awarded just and fair compensation for the acquired land while considering the location of the land. The sale-deeds, Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, produced by the landowners on record were not considered while determining market value of the acquired land. Vide sale-deed, Ex. P-1, land measuring 2 kanal was sold on 18.7.2005 at an average price of ` 20,00,000/- per acre and vide sale-deed, Ex. P-2, 14 marlas of land was sold on 27.10.2005 at an average price of ` 19,20,000/- per acre. These sale-transactions are of villages Azimgarh and Sadarheri, which are adjacent to village Dandota. Inspite of the fact that evidence in the form of sale-deeds, Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, was available, the learned court below while relying upon Collector rates assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The learned court below while determining the market value of the acquired land has totally ignored the location and potentality of the land. The submission was for determination of value keeping in view the location and the evidence led by the landowners on record. Another submission made by learned counsel for the landowners was that due to construction of channel the land of the landowners has been divided into two parts but only those landowners have been awarded ` 50,000/- per acre more as value of the land who appeared as witnesses and rest of the landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance. It was submitted that the learned court below should have at least awarded compensation as per the revenue record to those landowners whose land has been bifurcated and not to those who had appeared as witnesses. Heard learned counsel for the landowners and perused the relevant referred record. In support of their claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, the landowners have produced on record sale instances in the form of sale-deeds, Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. These sale instances are of villages Azimgarh and Sadarheri, which are stated to be adjacent to village Dandota. No site plan has been placed on the record to show the location of land RFA No. 483 of 2011 (3) pertaining to these sale-deeds viz-a-viz the acquired land or the location of the villages, referred to above. In the absence thereof, these sale-deeds cannot be relied upon as a good piece of evidence. Further sale-deed, Ex. P-2, vide which 14 marlas of land was sold for an average price of ` 19,20,000/- per acre was registered on 27.10.2005 i.e. after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The learned court below has rightly discarded the same. As far as grant of severance on account of bifurcation of land is concerned, the court has rightly granted compensation to the landowners who have led evidence in that regard, accordingly, the same does not call for any interference. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, the value of the acquired land determined by the learned court below cannot be said to be on lower side. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, all the accompanying applications are also dismissed. 16.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge