RFA No.8 of 2003 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.8 of 2003 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 **** State of Haryana and others . . . . Appellant(s) Vs. Bhopal and others . . . . Respondent(s) **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.H.S. Hooda, Advocate General with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the appellant(s). Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the respondent(s). **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This judgment shall dispose of 35 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 8 to 11, 13 to 26, 71 to 86 and 1675 all of the year 2003, filed by the State of Haryana as well as by the claimants, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. In pursuance of the Haryana Government notification No.10051/5-L, dated 18.12.1997 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) and published in the Official Gazette dated 18.12.1997 and notification of declaration No.235/5-L dated 13.1.1998 issued under Section 6 of the Act and published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 13.1.1998, the Government of Haryana acquired 2.50 acres of land in village Kanharwas, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari, at public expense, for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of Kosli Minor. RFA No.8 of 2003 - 2 - As per the demarcation at the site, the acquired area was actually found to be 2.82 acres instead of 2.50 acres notified under Section 6 of the Act. The small difference was found due to either different methods of measurement and calculations adopted by the acquiring department or on account of miscalculation of the area. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector , Irrigation Department, Rewari (in short ‘the Collector’), vide his award No.2 for the year 1999-2000 in respect of village Kanharwas, H.B. No.173, dated 15.4.1989 determined the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs.2 lac per acre for Chahi and @ Rs.3 lac per acre for Gair Mumkin. The claimants had filed objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was, inter alia, alleged that acquired land possessed residential, commercial and institutional potentiality as it is situated near State Highway joining Kosli sub Division having all the facilities like water, road etc, and the market value at the time of the acquisition was not less than Rs.10 lac per acre. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana contested the claim and alleged that the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and well in accordance with law. It was denied that the acquired land is situated near State Highway, Rewari to Kosli road and that it had any potential for being used as residential, commercial or institutional area. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned reference Court while relying upon the sale instance Ex.P1 dated 19.8.1996 vide which land of village Kanharwas was sold @ Rs.4,80,000/- per acre awarded compensation @ Rs.5 lac per acre. RFA No.8 of 2003 - 3 - Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, while arguing on behalf of the claimants has vehemently contended that learned reference Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that sale deed Ex.P1 is of 19.8.1996 whereas acquisition in the present case is of 18.12.1997 which is almost 1 year and 4 months later in time, therefore, the appellants should have been awarded an additional amount of at least 15 % for the gap of sale deed and the notification. On the other hand, Mr.H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, has contended that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no further enhancement is contemplated because the reference Court has already given an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- over and above the sale deed Ex.P1, whereby the land has been sold @ Rs.4,80,000/- per acre. It is further contended that the reference Court has also granted benefits to the claimants by giving a uniform rate for both Chahi as well as Gair Mumkin land which were assessed separately by the Collector @ Rs.2 lac per acre for Chahi and 3 lac per acre for Gair Mumkin. It is further contended that even according to the site plan Ex.R4, the sale deed Ex.P1 is quite near to the abadi of the village, therefore, it has been sold @ Rs.4,80,000/- per acre whereas the acquired land is at a distance from the village as the same has been acquired for the purpose of construction of the Kosli Minor. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. No doubt, the Court can grant some increase for the gap of the period of the sale deed and the notification but in the present case, in my view, the learned reference Court has already RFA No.8 of 2003 - 4 - granted just and adequate compensation by increasing the amount of Rs.20,000/- over and above the sale deed Ex.P1 vide which the land has been sold for Rs.4,80,000/- per acre as the compensation has been determined by the learned reference Court @ Rs.5 lac per acre. The reference Court has also given uniform rate in respect of both Chahi as well as Gair Mumkin land, although there was a difference of Rs.1 lac between Chahi and Gair Mumkin land as the Collector had assessed compensation @ Rs.2 lac per acre for Chahi land and @ Rs.3 lac per acre for Gair Mumkin land. Moreover, it has also been found that as per Ex.R4 (Site Plan) sale deed Ex.P1 is quite near to the abadi of the village vide which only 1 kanal 6 marlas of land has been sold for Rs.78,000/- which probably cannot be used for agricultural purposes and has been purchased by the vendee for residential purposes. It is also pertinent to mention here that no argument has been raised by the counsel for the State for the purposes of reducing the compensation awarded by the reference Court. No other point has been raised in these appeals by either the parties. In view of the totality of circumstances discussed hereinabove, I hold that the award of the learned reference Court is just and adequate and there is no error which may call for any interference by this Court. Thus, the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the State of Haryana are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 22.12.2008 JUDGE vivek