R.F.A. No. 962 of 1997 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : November 17, 2008 1. R. F. A No. 962 of 1997 and Cross-objection No. 118/C-I of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Smt. Veena Vohra and others ... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 933 of 1997 and Cross-objection No. 114/C-I of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Gurcharan Singh and another ... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 934 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Hari Chand and others ... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 935 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Ranjit Singh and others ... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 936 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Shalini and another ... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 937 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Anand Kumar and others ... Respondents 7. R. F. A No. 963 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Himmat Singh and others ... Respondents 8. R. F. A No. 964 of 1997 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants vs Kuldeep Kaur and others ... Respondents R.F.A. No. 962 of 1997 [ 2] 9. R. F. A No. 1070 of 1997 (O&M) Anand Kumar and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 10. R. F. A No. 1524 of 1997 (O&M) Himmat Singh and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 11. R. F. A No. 1525 of 1997 (O&M) Ranjit Singh and others ... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 12. R. F. A No. 1526 of 1997 (O&M) Kuldeep Kaur and others ... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 13. R. F. A No. 1527 of 1997 (O&M) Hari Chand and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 13 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 1070, 1524 to 1527 of 1997 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 933 to 937, 962 to 964 of 1997 have been filed by the State for reduction in the compensation awarded to the land owners. In R.F.A. Nos. 933 and 962 of 1997, the land owners have filed cross objections seeking further enhancement of compensation. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 962 of 1997. R.F.A. No. 962 of 1997 [ 3] Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 17 acres, 7 kanals and 1 marla situated in Village Jorian, adjoining the town of Yamuna Nagar, was acquired vide notification dated 16.4.1991 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), for construction of 220 K.V. Sub- station, Yamuna Nagar. This was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 14.2.1992. The Collector gave award of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has not properly assessed the fair value of the acquired land, which was situated at a very strategic place near the crossing whereby roads from Saharanpur and Karnal connect with the road from Yamuna Nagar. Entire area in the vicinity had been developed for which ample evidence was produced in the form of sale deeds showing average value of the transactions therein @ Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 9,12,000/- per acre, but still the learned court below has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre as compensation. Referring the location of the land, it was submitted that the land in question is situated just outside the town of Yamuna Nagar opposite to which is eye hospital. There are industrial establishments in the vicinity. It had great potential for being put to commercial and industrial use. The pressure for development of the city was towards this side. He further submitted that even the Collector in his award as mentioned that the average price in the area from 17.4.1990 to 16.4.1991 was Rs. 1,51,704/- per acre, but still he had given the award assessing the value of the acquired land even less than that. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the sale deeds produced by the land owners as such could not be relied upon for the reason that one of them was pertaining to a constructed house. Sale deed (Ex. PG) was registered after the acquisition of the land in question and the other being for small plots of land. Even otherwise, the location of all the sale deeds was not evident as no site plan was produced on record. As against this, the submission is that the State had produced as many as five sale deeds which clearly established fair value of the acquired land in the area, but still the same have been arbitrarily ignored by the learned court below and in fact the enhancement as has been made deserves to be set aside and the award of the Collector should be upheld. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record. R.F.A. No. 962 of 1997 [ 4] It is not disputed that the land owners have not produced any site plan on record to show the location of the land involved in the sale deeds produced by them. As far as sale deed (Ex. PG) is concerned, the same was rightly ignored by the learned court below for the reason of its being registered after the acquisition, i.e., on 24.10.1991, whereas the land was acquired vide notification dated 16.4.1991. Another sale deed (Ex. PC) was also rightly rejected for the reason of its being for the sale of a constructed house which cannot be said to be fair price for the land beneath it, as it included the cost of construction as well. Out of three other sale deeds, the learned court below relied upon sale deed (Ex. PD) dated 22.6.1990, registered almost 10 months prior to the date of acquisition where the average consideration paid was Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for a plot of 600 square yards. Though the site plan is not on record, but it was noticed from a perusal of the sale deed that the same was located on the road on which the land in question was acquired and close to that. As far as sale deeds, produced by the State, are concerned, firstly as per the site plan (Ex. R6), the location thereof is at a far off place and off the road, whereas the land in question was situated on main Yamuna Nagar and Karnal road. Secondly, in all the sale deeds produced by the State, the average consideration paid has been shown at Rs. 44,445/- to Rs. 79,565/- per acre, whereas the Collector has determined the fair value at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre while recording in his award that the average price of the similarly situated land for the period between 17.4.1990 to 16.4.1991 was Rs. 1,51,704/- per acre. Keeping in view the fact that there is a sale instance showing the value of the land in the vicinity registered almost 10 months before the date of acquisition and further the average price per acre in the area of the land which is similarly situated was found to be Rs. 1,51,704/- per acre by the Collector himself, within the period of one year prior to the date of acquisition, in my considered opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in assessing the fair value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. The same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, all the appeals and the cross objections are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 17, 2008 mk