R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : September 24, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 Raghbir alias Balbir and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 255 of 1990 Surjit Kaur and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 259 of 1990 Johar Singh and another .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 260 of 1990 Rachan Singh and another .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 261 of 1990 Mehar Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 262 of 1990 Gurmail Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 2] (7) R.F.A. No. 263 of 1990 Manmohan Singh and another .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 264 of 1990 Amarjit and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 265 of 1990 Nand Singh and another .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 266 of 1990 Gurdev Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 338 of 1990 Jarnail Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 1895 of 1991 Chittan Kaur and another .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 3] (13) R.F.A. No. 2036 of 1991 State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Rachan Singh and another .. Respondents (14) R.F.A. No. 2037 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Gurmail Singh and others .. Respondents (15) R.F.A. No. 2038 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Jauhar Singh and another .. Respondents (16) R.F.A. No. 2039 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Nand Singh and another .. Respondents (17) R.F.A. No. 2040 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Surjit Kaur and another .. Respondents (18) R.F.A. No. 2041 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Labh Singh and others .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 4] (19) R.F.A. No. 2042 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Amarjit and others .. Respondents (20) R.F.A. No. 2043 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Chitan Kaur and another .. Respondents (21) R.F.A. No. 2044 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Bachan Singh and others .. Respondents (22) R.F.A. No. 2045 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Mehar Singh and others .. Respondents (23) R.F.A. No. 2046 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Gurmail Singh and others .. Respondents (24) R.F.A. No. 2047 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Manmohan Singh and another .. Respondents R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 5] (25) R.F.A. No. 2048 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Gurdev Singh and others .. Respondents (26) R.F.A. No. 2049 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Harinder Singh .. Respondents (27) R.F.A. No. 2050 of 1991 The State of Punjab and others .. Appellants Vs. Jarnail Singh and others .. Respondents (28) R.F.A. No. 1418 of 1992 Labh Singh and others .. Appellants Vs. The State of Punjab .. Respondents (29) R.F.A. No. 2326 of 1994 Bachan Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs. .. Appellants Vs. Department of Industries, Punjab and others .. Respondents Present: Mr. B.S. Bhasaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 1895 of 1991 and for the respondents in R.F.A. No. 2043 of 1991. Mr. Abhishek Chautala, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 6] Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned R.F.A. Nos. 258, 255, 259, 260 to 266 and 338 of 1990, 1895, 2036 to 2050 of 1991, 1418 of 1992 and 2326 of 1994, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990. R.F.A. Nos. 255, 258, 259, 260 to 266 and 338 of 1990, 1895 of 1991, 1418 of 1992 and 2326 of 1994 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation. In R.F.A. Nos. 2036 to 2050 of 1991, the State has prayed for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Court below. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 58 bighas and 13 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Babbanpur and 256 bighas and 15 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhasaur was acquired vide notification dated 30.3.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for Industries Department, which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 9.9.1983. The Collector gave award of Rs. 14,335.68 for the land acquired from the area of Village Babbanpur and Rs. 15,260/- per acre for the land of Village Bhasaur. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the fair value of the land @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre for both the villages. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned Court below, is quite meager keeping in view the location thereof and its future potentiality. Judicial notice of the increasing price of land could very well be taken by the Court to arrive at just and fair value thereof at the time of acquisition even if no evidence was led by the appellants. He further submitted that the amount of charges paid by the appellants for levelling of land and other activities have not been granted by the learned Court below. Sale deed (Ex.A.3), though pertaining to 6 biswas of land, was the best piece of evidence and the same has wrongly been ignored by the learned Court below. Additional argument raised by Mr. Kansal, learned counsel appearing for some of the land owners, is that on account of acquisition of land, the plan of the land owners for setting up of industrial units was shattered. As a result of acquisition of land, now to set up the industrial units the land owners will have to buy land at higher price and that too at a far off place. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has been determined by the learned Court below on the R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 7] basis of the material produced by the land owners on record. In fact, the only sale deed relied upon by the land owners was merely for 6 biswas of land and that too was registered after the date of acquisition. The sale deed subsequent in time could not be relied upon for the reason that there can always be an effort to accelerate the prices showing therein for the purpose of claiming more compensation. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The land owners in the present case produced agreements to sell to show the value of the land on the date of acquisition. However, the same cannot be referred to and relied upon for the purpose of determination of the value of the land on the date of acquisition. Only one sale deed in the form of Ex. A.W.14/A was found to be worth consideration by the learned Court below which was registered on 31.5.1983, nearly two months after the date of acquisition. In the aforesaid sale deed, an area of about one acre of land was dealt with and relying upon this sole piece of evidence, the learned Court below assessed the value of the acquired land on the basis thereof without applying any cut therein. As far as sale deed (Ex.A.3), relied upon by the land owners is concerned, the learned Court below referred to the same and did not found the same to be worth reliable for the reason that the land forming part therein was situated at a distance of about one kilometer from the acquired land and the same was within the abadi. Keeping in view these factors, in the absence of any evidence on record, which could enable the Court to assess the value of the land any further, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in determining the value of the land by placing reliance on Ex. A.W.14/A. The argument of the learned counsel for the land owners that the Court can take judicial notice of the increasing prices of the land has no legs to stand, as judicial notice can be taken only on the basis of some material on record and not without there being any evidence on record. Further the claim regarding the amount spent on levelling of land is also found to be totally misconceived in the absence of any reliable evidence led in this regard. The only reliance is on the statements of the persons to whom the amount was allegedly paid, which is not supported by any documentary evidence to show that the land in question was earlier in the form of tibbas or uneven which required levelling and at what time the same was carried out. Even the contention regarding setting up of industrial units on the land in question is also totally misconceived for the reason that it is not the case of the land owners therein that the land was purchased by them some time back for the purpose of setting up of industrial units, rather, the land is ancestral and the R.F.A. No. 258 of 1990 [ 8] land owners are primarily agriculturists. Nothing has been referred to on record to show that they were involved in any industrial activities or that any process was initiated for setting up of industrial units. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by the Court below in determining the value of the land keeping in view the evidence produced by the land owners on record. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 24, 2008 mk