R. F. A No. 1835 of 1989 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. F. A No. 1835 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.12.2008 Kanhya Lal ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The landowner is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and apportionment of compensation of the area of 32 kanals and 17 marlas. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 4.11.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of Village Pailla, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for establishment of residential Sector-33, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 20.3.1985 assessed the market value of the land at higher level side at Rs. 24,000/- per acre and land at lower level at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 24.2.1989, upheld the award of the Collector with regard to valuation of land and in reference under Section 30 of the Act, the appellant was granted 1/3rd share for 8 kanals. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the value of the acquired land as assessed by the learned court below is not in conformity with the evidence produced on record by the landowners. He further submitted that the Collector had wrongly assessed the value of the acquired land by categorising it as situated on higher level and lower level. The land was quite close to the abadi and the same was required to be R. F. A No. 1835 of 1989 (2) assessed at the same rate. He further submitted that he was tenant at will on the land in question and accordingly for the area measuring 32 kanals 17 marlas, he is entitled to apportionment of compensation. The claim to that effect has been denied by the learned court below without there being any reason. In fact, the appellant in the present case was in possession of the land since 1962. Even in the jamabandi, Ex. P-9 and P-10, for the years 1978-79 and 1983-84, he was shown to be in possession of the land as tenant at will. As regards determination of fair value of the land is concerned, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the entire land should be assessed at the same rate even if no evidence was led by the landowners. It was a case where the entire land was owned by the Gram Panchayat which was transferred to Faridabad Complex Administration and they did not chose to file any appeal against the award of the learned court below. Not only this, they even did not lead any evidence before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation. Learned counsel for the State referring to para 11 of the award of the Reference Court submitted that it was a case of no evidence where the landowners did not lead any evidence to justify their claim for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State regarding there being no evidence on record to justify further enhancement in the value of the acquired land is concerned, is borne out of the record. As no evidence was brought on record, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in upholding the award of the Collector determining the value of the land at higher level side at Rs. 24,000/- per acre and land at lower level at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the categorisation of the land as determined by the Collector for higher level and lower level should be done away with and the entire land should be assessed at the same rate, is also misconceived. It is for the reason that the difference in the value of the land was made by the Collector on the basis of its level. A low lying area would certainly be less valuable as compared to a higher level area. R. F. A No. 1835 of 1989 (3) As far as the claim of the appellant regarding apportionment of compensation with regard to 32 kanals 17 marlas of land is concerned, though the stand of the appellant is that he was in possession of the land since 1962 but no record as such was produced on record to substantiate that claim. All what has been referred to is Ex. P-9 and P-10, the jamabandi for the years 1978-79 and 1983-84 which do not support the case of the appellant. As against this, there is document Ex. R-7 on record showing the grant of lease of the land in question to the appellant for two years period i.e. 1974-75 and 1975-76, thereafter there is no document on record produced by either of the parties to show that in what capacity the appellant was in possession of the land, the apportionment with regard to which was being sought. Even the jamabandi, Ex. P-9 and P-10 also does not come to the rescue of the appellant for the simple reason that admittedly in 1977 the land stood acquired. As the appellant in the present case has not been able to establish his rightful possession on the land for any period after 1975-76, no case for apportionment of compensation for the land measuring 32 kanals 17 marlas, as is sought, is made out. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 1.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge