R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.12.2010 Kripal Singh and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1878, 1889 to 1900 and 3216 of 2006, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2006. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 30.4.1997, published on 3.6.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 2.30 acres of land, situated in village Uldepur Hadbast No. 171, Tehsil and District Sonepat for extension of Mahara Drain. The same was followed by notification dated 16.3.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value @ ` 1,20,000/- per acre for Chahi/Nehri land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence led by the land owners in its true R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2006 [2] perspective. The acquired land, which is in the form of a small strip, is located just adjoining the boundary of the abadi of the village as it is connected with the village pond. The land was acquired for the purpose of extension of Mahara Drain. Though the land owners had produced on record various sale deeds, however, sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P28) are the most relevant piece of evidence. The same pertained to the plots located within the abadi of the village. The area of land acquired belonging to different land owners is also not very large as a small strip of land, acquired for the purpose, is passing through the land owned by different land owners. The total area is merely 2.30 acres. Considering the location of the acquired land, sale deeds (Ex. P1 and Ex. P28) can very well be relied upon as even the acquired land also had the same potentiality as it could very well be used for the purpose of construction of houses on expansion of village abadi. Vide sale deed (Ex. P1), registered on 19.12.1995, 310 square yards of plot was sold for ` 37,500/- at an average price of ` 5,85,483/- per acre. Vide sale deed (Ex. P28), registered on 9.2.1994, 204 square yards of plot was sold for ` 14,500/-, i.e., ` 3,44,400/- per acre. Considering the fact that the aforesaid sale deeds were registered prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the landowners are even entitled to increase in the consideration paid therein @ 12% per annum till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Considering the fact that the aforesaid sale deeds pertained to small plots, at the most a cut of 30% can be applied to arrive at fair value of the acquired land. It was further submitted that the acquisition was for the purpose of construction of extension of drain, on account of which the land owned by various land owners has been divided into two parts, which has made it difficult for them to irrigate two portions of the land, however still nothing has been awarded on account of damages for severance. The land owners should be awarded at least 50% on account thereof. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that just and fair compensation has been awarded by the learned court below to the land owners which does not call for any interference by this court. The sale deeds pertaining to small plots cannot possibly be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, which is a big chunk of 2.30 acres. Even otherwise, the land pertaining to those sale deeds is located within the abadi of the village, which cannot be said to be comparable piece of land if considered vis-a-vis the acquired land. Even if that is considered to be relevant, considering the fact that the acquired land falls in the periphery of the village abadi, a cut of at least 50% is required to be applied. R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2006 [3] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Site plan (Ex. P2) produced on record by the land owners shows the acquired land. It is a small strip, which is located just in the outskirts of the village abadi. In fact, starting from one point it is connected with the village pond and then going further. The total area of the acquired land is 2.30 acres. Two sale deeds, which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land are in fact, in my opinion, quite relevant considering the location of the acquired land and the land dealt with in the sale deeds. Even if those are located within the abadi and also pertain to small plots, still a reasonable cut can be applied therein. Another factor, which is relevant is that the aforesaid sale deeds were registered on 19.12.1995 and 9.2.1994. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 30.4.1997. Increase @ 12% per annum deserves to be added thereon for the time gap from the date of registration of sale deeds and issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. If the same is added, the value would come out as under: Ex. Date Area sold Sale consideration Difference Price per acre in ` after adding 12% p.a. in ` ................................................................................................................................................................... P1 19.12.1995 310 sq. yards 37,500/- 16 months 6,79,159/- P28 9.2.1994 204 sq. yards 14,500/- 38 months 4,74,746/- .................................................................................................................................................................. Considering the fact that the same pertained to small pieces of land, if a reasonable cut of about 50% is applied therein, the same would come out to ` 2,88,476/- per acre. In my opinion, this needs to be rounded off to ` 3,00,000/- per acre considering the future potentiality. It is on account of the fact that with the increase in population, the village boundaries also extend and the land in question being located just adjoining to the already populated village boundary, further expansion would certainly be on this portion of the land. The land owners are held entitled to the said amount of compensation along with all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. No doubt, due to construction of drain, the land of the land owners is bifurcated into two parts which makes it difficult for them to irrigate the other portion of land. In my opinion, considering the difficulties which are being faced by the landowners for the acquisition of this type, damages to the tune of 20% on the value of the acquired land would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2006 [4] landowners are held entitled to damages on account of severance @ 20% on the value of the acquired land. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. For the reasons mentioned above, the land owners are held entitled to compensation @ 3,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land. They shall also be entitled to damages on account of severance @ 20% on the value of the acquired land. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 14.12.2010 mk