IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RFA No. 2300 of 1993

Date of decision: 1^st August, 2012

Haryana State through the Collector, Karnal and others

........ Appellants

Versus

Waryam Singh son of Shri Mana Singh r/o village Kachhwa

Tehsil and District Karnal and others

........ Respondents

RFA NO. 2176 OF 1993

Waryam Singh son of Shri Mana Singh r/o village Kachhwa

Tehsil and District Karnal and others

........ Appellants.

Versus

Haryana State through the Collector, Karnal and others

....... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN

Present:

None for the appellant in RFA No. 2176 of 1993.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

K.Kannan, J.(Oral)

1.

RFA No. 2176 of 1993 is at the instance of the land owner

and RFA No. 2300 of 1993 is at the instance of the State claiming for

modification of compensation as assessed by the reference court.

2.

The appeal is at the instance of the State questioning the

quantum of compensation assessed for acquisition of land brought

through notification issued on 07.05.1981. The Land Acquisition

Collector had through his award dated 23.05.1986 awarded

compensation of ` 11,645/- per acre for Chahi agricultural land.

Before the reference court, the land owner relied on three sale deeds

A2, A3 and A4 as transactions brought out in the same village but

RFA NO. 2300 OF 1993

-2-

also contended that those properties were slightly inferior to his own

lands and sought for determination at relatively higher rates. The

reference court took the average of valuation in the three documents

and arrived at ` 20,000/- per acre as the valuation brought through

the said three sale deeds. However, accepting the argument of the

land owner that the acquired land was relatively superior, he added

`5,000/- further and assessed ` 25,000/- as the compensation

payable per acre.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

contends that either the reference court must accept the valuation as

provided in the sale deeds relied on by the land owner or discard

them wholly and take valuation brought through documents. Learned

counsel also states that the proposition advanced by him obtains

support through pronouncement of Supreme Court.

4.

I cannot accept for such an argument that if a document

is relied on by the land owner, it should be applied without minding

the qualification which the land owner gives with reference to such a

transaction. As a measure of pure logic it does not stand to reason. If

only transaction available for comparison is with reference to land of

inferior value and there are really no documents which pertain to the

same quality of land during the relevant period, land owner cannot be

expected to create any new evidence which does not exist. In such

an eventuality, it is fair enough that owner cites an instance and

seeks for the courts valuation after factoring for the relatively superior

quality of land which he claimed that he possessed. On such

RFA NO. 2300 OF 1993

-3-

basis, there ought not to be an objection for an upward valuation

after taking the average valuation brought through the sale instances.

The procedure followed by the reference court accords with reason

and I find no reason to any interference. Awards are confirmed and

the appeal by the State is dismissed.

5.

The appeal by the State i.e. RFA No. 2300 of 1993 is

dismissed. The appeal by the land owner i.e. RFA No. 2176 of 1993

is dismissed for default of appearance.

[K.KANNAN]

JUDGE

1^st August, 2012

Shivani Kaushik