RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.4.2009 1. RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) Mohinder Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 2. RFA No. 2251 of 1999 (O&M) Gurdev Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 3. RFA No. 2252 of 1999 (O&M) Ajit Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 4. RFA No. 2253 of 1999 (O&M) Ajmer Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 5. RFA No. 2426 of 1999 (O&M) Jarnail Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 6. RFA No. 2427 of 1999 (O&M) Jagjiwan Ram ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 2 7. RFA No. 2428 of 1999 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and others ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 8. RFA No. 2429 of 1999 (O&M) Hakam Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 9. RFA No. 2430 of 1999 (O&M) Paramjit Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 10. RFA No. 2431 of 1999 (O&M) Sunheri Devi @ Sawitri Devi ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 11. RFA No. 2432 of 1999 (O&M) Chiman Lal ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 12. RFA No. 2455 of 1999 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and others ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 13. RFA No. 2692 of 1999 (O&M) Jagjit Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 3 14. RFA No. 2795 of 1999 (O&M) Jagjit Kaur and another ....Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 15. RFA No. 2067 of 2000 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 16. RFA No. 2068 of 2000 (O&M) Jagdeep Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 17. RFA No. 2069 of 2000 (O&M) Lal Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 18. RFA No. 2070 of 2000 (O&M) Jagdev Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 19. RFA No. 2537 of 2000 (O&M) Mohinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Punjab State ...Respondent RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 4 20. RFA No. 56 of 2004 (O&M) Gurdial Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents 21. RFA No. 57 of 2004 (O&M) Gursewak Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. M.S. Uppal, Mr. Mukand Gupta, Mr. M.L. Saini for Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh and Mr. Alok Jain, Advocates for the landowners. Mr. O.P. Dabla, AAG Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J **** This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2250 to 2253, 2426 to 2432, 2455, 2692, 2795 of 1999, 2067 to 2070 and 2537 of 2000, 56 and 57 of 2004 filed by the landowners, as the same arise out of the common acquisition. The landowners have approached this court for enhancement of compensation. The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2250 of 1999. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Punjab vide notification dated 18.12.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') acquired 120 kanals of land for construction of District Administrative Complex at Mansa. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 10.11.94 assessed the market value of the chahi land at Rs. 80,578/- per acre; Nehri land @ Rs. 64,472/- per acre, Barani land @ Rs. 88,761/- per acre and gair mumkin land @ Rs. 1,02,681/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 104/- per square yard. RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 5 Still dissatisfied the land owners are before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that as far as the location of the land is concerned there is no dispute that same is strategically located within the city. It was adjacent to the Court complex, DC Office, and residential houses of Senior Officers of the District. The acquisition was made for the purpose of construction of District Administrative Complex after Mansa was declared to be a District. The entire chunk of land is located within the municipal limits. The main bus stand of the city was also in the vicinity. It had great potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. The prices in the area had started increasing rapidly after Mansa was declared a District. He further submitted that learned Court below had gone totally wrong in not placing reliance on sale deed Ex.A7 which was forming part of the acquired land and registered much prior to the date of acquisition. The Court had only placed reliance on sale deed Ex.A3 which was also part of the acquired land and located in the same khasra number as sale deed Ex.A7 was. The submission is that the reasoning given by learned Court below that out of the two sale deed the Court is considering only one which is showing lower price is totally perverse as the same cannot be justified in terms of the settled principles of law. Once there are two sale deeds available which are forming part of the acquired land and the genuineness thereof is not in dispute, there is no reason for the Court not to rely upon them. If there is variation in the consideration shown therein which may be due to location. At the most the Court could average the price shown therein and determine the compensation payable in terms thereof. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned Court below had not committed any illegality in relying upon the sale deed Ex.A3 and ignoring Ex.A7 as there is too much of variation in the consideration shown to have been paid therein, which cannot be justified on any reason. Both the sale deeds were registered at the same time. It is further submitted that the determination of compensation by learned Court below on account of acquisition of land is already much more than what they deserved, still the State accepted the same and did not file any appeal or cross objection. RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 6 But in any case there is no reason for seeking any further enhancement for which there is no material on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The facts as noticed by learned Court below and in the preceding paras regarding the location of land and its potentiality are not in dispute. The only issue under consideration is as to whether the learned Court below had rightly ignored the sale deed Ex.A7 registered on April 7, 1992 which was forming part of the acquired land though the acquisition was carried out vide notification dated December 18, 1992 whereas reliance was placed upon another sale deed Ex.A3 dated April 29, 1992. It is relevant to mention that the land forming part of both the sale deeds was located in Khasra No. 113. The genuineness of both the sale deeds is not in dispute. The State has not even filed appeal disputing any of the finding recorded by learned Court below. Perusal of Para 29 of the impugned award shows that the Court had rejected the sale deed Ex.A7 in comparison to Ex.A3 only for the reason that the sale consideration shown to have been paid in Ex.P3 is lower as compared to Ex.A7. In my opinion this cannot be a good reason for ignoring any of the sale instance especially when the genuineness thereof is not in dispute and the same is forming part of the acquired land. In my opinion in such circumstances safe method could have been to average the price shown in both the sale deeds and then consider the same for the purpose of application of reasonable cut, in case required in the facts and circumstances of the case. The value per square yard shown in Ex.A7, is Rs. 301/- whereas the average value shown in sale deed Ex.A3 is Rs. 157/- per square yard. If average of both the sale deeds is taken the same comes out to Rs. 229/- per square yard. Considering the fact that these are sale of small plots of land which cannot be considered as such for the purpose of determination of fair value of big chunk of land which is measuring about 15 acres, I deem it appropriate to apply a cut which has to be keeping in view the fact that the land is located in the vicinity of already developed area and also falls within the municipal limits. A cut of 40% in my opinion would be RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 7 reasonable. Reducing Rs. 91.60 therefrom the amount comes out to Rs. 137.40 which according to me shall be the appropriate amount of compensation which the land owners deserve to be paid in the present set of appeals. Ordered accordingly. The land owners shall also be entitled to statutory benefits as are available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 15.4.2009 JUDGE Reema RFA No. 2250 of 1999 (O&M) 8 RFA No. 2250 of 1999 **** Present:- Mr. M.S. Uppal, Mr. Mukand Gupta, Mr. M.L. Saini for Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Mr. Kuldeep V. Singh and Mr. Alok Jain, Advocates for the landowners. Mr. O.P. Dabla, AAG Punjab. **** Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. (RAJESH BINDAL) 1.4.2009. JUDGE reema