R.F.A. No. 1296 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1296 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: November 05, 2008 Jit alias Ranjit Singh .. Appellant v. Haryana State and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owners is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas comprising in khatoni No. 5190, Khasra No. 5530/2, situated in the revenue estate of Karnal, belonging to the appellant, was acquired vide notification dated 2.6.1972, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for residential and commercial area in Sector 12, Part-II, Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of the plain area @ Rs. 2,75,000/- per acre. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, awarded compensation @ Rs. 76/- per square yard. As far as value of acquired land is concerned, vide separate judgment delivered today in R.F.A. No. 2504 of 1994-- Ram Gopal (deceased) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and another, in set of appeals filed by the land owners, the compensation has been further enhanced to Rs. 89/- per square yard. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Ram Gopal's case (supra), the market value of the acquired land in the present case is assessed at Rs. 89/- per square yard. Additional submission made by learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that the observation of the learned court below that the appellant in the present case shall be entitled to receive the amount of enhanced R.F.A. No. 1296 of 2003 [2] compensation subject to determination of his share out of the joint khewat from competent court of jurisdiction deserves to be set aside keeping in view the fact that it has been held by the court below that the vendor of the plot who sold it to the appellant was a proprietor of the village. However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The observation made by the learned court below is perfectly in consonance with law. No doubt, Dei Ram had sold plot measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas to the appellant way back on 15.6.1971, but it was found that in the revenue record in the column of ownership, shamlat deh was mentioned. It could not be established on record as to what extent Dei Ram owned land as a co-sharer in the shamlat deh, being proprietor. Once his right to the property to the extent he sold is not determined, the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to the share to the extent he purchased the property from Dei Ram, as a vendor cannot transfer a better title to the vendee than what he has. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this additional submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 05, 2008 mk