R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002 [ 1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : November 17 ,2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002 Jaswant Singh and others .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (2) R.F.A. No. 1986 of 2001 Gurdev Singh and another .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (3) R.F.A. No. 1987 of 2001 Billu Singh and another .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (4) R.F.A. No. 1988 of 2001 Baldev Singh and others .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (5) R.F.A. No. 1989 of 2001 Bikram Singh .. Appellant v. Punjab State .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002 [ 2] (6) R.F.A. No. 4251 of 2001 Gurbachan Singh and others .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (7) R.F.A. No. 167 of 2002 Gurdev Singh .. Appellant v. Punjab State .. Respondent (8) R.F.A. No. 168 of 2002 Mohinder Singh and others .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (9) R.F.A. No. 169 of 2002 Gurcharan Singh .. Appellant v. Punjab State .. Respondent (10) R.F.A. No. 170 of 2002 Bant Singh and others .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (11) R.F.A. No. 172 of 2002 Jagjit Kaur and another .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002 [ 3] (12) R.F.A. No. 173 of 2002 Mithu Singh and others .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent (13) R.F.A. No. 1161 of 2002 Mukhtiar Kaur and another .. Appellants v. Punjab State .. Respondent Present: Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal and Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. O. P. Dabla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate 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. The land owners are in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 49 acres, 6 kanals and 1 marla situated at Mansa was acquired vide notification dated 11.10.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for construction of New Mandi Township. The same was followed by notification dated 1.10.1991 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') gave award of Rs. 49,600/- per acre for the acquired land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation at Rs. 62/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence produced by them on record to determine the fair value of the acquired land. The land was strategically located on G.T. Road. It was within the municipal limits since 1974 except Khasra No. 234, which R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002 [ 4] was adjoining it. The area in the vicinity was already developed and this being on G.T. Road had great potential for being put to commercial and industrial use besides residential. There was great pressure for urbanisation in this direction of Mansa city as it was abutting the National Highway. In fact, Dhabas, Hotels and commercial establishments were existing in the vicinity. The acquired area is just at a distance of 7-8 killas from the main town. Railway Station, Mansa is also not far off from there. It was further submitted that for the acquisition of land vide notification dated 18.12.1992 vide award (Ex. A1), the Reference Court determined the value therein at Rs. 104/- per square yard. The land in that case was acquired for Court Complex. The land acquired for District Courts was situated on a link road on the other side of the city, as compared to the land in the present case, which was situated on the National Highway. This itself shows the future potential of the land. As it was the land which was located in the municipal limits quite close to the town abadi, the sale deeds produced by the appellants should have been relied upon as such without applying any cut as the plots in the city will always be sold in square yards and not in acres. The sale deeds, as were produced by the State are located at a far of distance, as is noticed by the learned court below while recording a finding from a perusal of site plan (Ex. R2) produced by the State. Accordingly, those were rightly not considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land. Mansa was declared as a District in 1992 and with the declaration of District, the activities for development started at a fast speed and there was much pressure on the land in the vicinity of the existing town for expansion. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the acquired land is situated 7-8 killas from the main town. There was no activity at all when the land was acquired. Reliance should not be placed upon the sale deeds, as were produced by the appellants as they do not show the fair value of the land in the area being transactions for small plots. At the time of acquisition of land, it was merely being put to agriculture use. The town was not fast developing as is sought to be claimed by the appellants. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as location of the land is concerned, the parties are not in dispute that it is situated within the municipal limits as was notified in the year 1974. The location thereof on the main G.T. Road and the distance from the abadi of the town is also not disputed. It is general phenomenon that development of any town or city takes place around the main roads because of availability of R.F.A. No. 171 of 2002 [ 5] infrastructure. Another factor, which is important is the declaration of Mansa as a district in 1992. With the creation of district, there was rapid development which increased the pace of development and need for more space in the vicinity of the town for expansion. Once the land is forming part of the municipal limits, the property there has great potential. There the land is always sold in square yards as big chunk of land is normally not available for a planned development. The learned court below primarily relied upon sale deed dated 12.6.1989 (Ex. AW8/A), whereby 16-1/2 marlas of land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. It was further found that the land pertaining to this sale deed was situated about 100 karams away from the acquired land. Considering this to be the best piece of evidence and more close to the acquired land in location and applying a cut of 33-1/2% thereon, the value of the acquired land was determined at Rs. 62/- per square yard. The State has not filed any appeal, meaning thereby it was not aggrieved of the factum of reliance on sale deed (Ex. AW8/A) for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. In my considered opinion, the learned court below has failed to consider the fact that the sale deed (Ex. AW8/A) was registered on 12.6.1989, whereas the land was acquired on 11.10.1990, an increase for the period in between could very well be granted, which for a period of 15 months should be taken @ 10%. Taking the average price per square yard of sale deed (Ex. AW8/A) by adding 10% therein, the same would come out to Rs. 102/- per square yard. In my opinion, even the cut applied by the learned court below @ 33-1/3% also deserves some appreciation, keeping in view the fact that the land falls within the municipal limits and close to the populated area of the town and further connected to G.T. Road. Accordingly, a cut of 30% would be more appropriate. Reducing a sum of Rs. 30.60 per square yard from Rs. 102/- per square yard, the amount of compensation payable to the appellants in the present case would be Rs. 71.40 per square yard as against Rs. 62/- per square yard awarded by the learned court below. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as are available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 17, 2008 mk