JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal J.:-This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 3149 to 3152 of 1999, 96 of 2000, 3049 to 3053, 3069 and 3284 of 2005, 121, 1860, 1861, and 3825 of 2006, Cross-objections filed by the landowners and R. F. A. Nos. 949 to 953, 1550, 1564, 1839, 2791, 2805 to 2808, and 2820 of 1999, 212 of 2000, 2801 to 2820, 2823 and 2824 of 2005 filed by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited (for short, “the Corporation”) on whose behalf the land was acquired by the State Government, as the same arise out of the common acquisition of land falling in the revenue estates of Villages Chanalon and Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. The landowners have approached this court for further enhancement, whereas the Corporation has filed appeals for reduction in the compensation. 2. However, the facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2801 of 2005. 3. Briefly, the facts are that vide notifications dated 27.3.1991 and 23.1.1992, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Government of Punjab, acquired land situated in Villages Chanalon and Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for setting up of Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land, apart from separate compensation for super structure, fruit/non-fruit bearing trees, at the following rates:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sr. No. Kind of land Village Chanalon Village Singhpura --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Chahi Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre Rs. 1,78,078/- per acre 2 Barani Rs. 1,66,920/- per acre Rs. 1,33,536/- per acre 3 Banjar Rs. 1,11,280/- per acre Rs. 89,024/- per acre 4 Gair mumkin Rs. 55,640/- per acre Rs. 44,512/- per acre --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 4.8.2005, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre. 5. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the value of the acquired land as assessed by the learned court below deserves to be increased further for the reason that the evidence produce on record by them in the form of sale-deeds Ex. A-2 and A-8 and an earlier award Ex. A-44 pertaining to the acquisition of land for cattle fair were not considered at all. A-2 and A-8 and an earlier award Ex. A-44 pertaining to the acquisition of land for cattle fair were not considered at all. It was submitted that the land was strategically located on Chandigarh-Ropar Highway where the area was fast developing into an industrial township because the State was providing incentives in the form of subsidy etc. In fact, 20-30 industries had already been set up. Even the land was acquired for setting up of a Focal Industrial Point. The land which was acquired for cattle fair was merely 9 killas away from the boundary of the acquired land located on the main road where for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 7.9.1984, the value was determined at Rs. 4,90,000/- per acre by the learned Reference Court which was affirmed by this court in R. F. A. No. 3232 of 1992 – The State of Punjab vs Gurjas Pal Singh, decided on 26.4.2006. The number of factories existing on the acquired land were also released from acquisition. Referring to the sale-deeds, Ex. A-2 and A-8 which the learned counsel for the landowners have been able to locate on the site plan placed on record by referring to the khasra number contained therein, the submission is that vide Ex. A-2 land measuring 17 marlas was sold on 4.2.1991 for a total consideration of Rs. 68,000/- at an average price of Rs. 6,40,000/- per acre. Similarly vide sale-deed Ex. A-8 land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 66,000/- at an average price of Rs. 4,80,000/- per acre. The submission is that the value shown in these sale-deeds coupled with award Ex. A-44 as upheld by this court in Gurjas Pal Singh’s case (supra), should be considered for determination of fair value of the acquired land. The submission is that the award of the court below pertaining to the land situated in the vicinity is the best piece of evidence which should be relied upon and if the locational advantage is set off with the time period vis-a-vis the award Ex. A-44, the landowners are entitled to the compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs. 4,90,000/- per acre. R.F.A. Nos. 3049-3051, 3053, 3284 of 2005 and 121 of 2006. 6. A-44, the landowners are entitled to the compensation at the same rate i.e. Rs. 4,90,000/- per acre. R.F.A. Nos. 3049-3051, 3053, 3284 of 2005 and 121 of 2006. 6. Additional argument in the aforesaid appeals regarding the valuation of trees was raised to the effect that though the acquisition in the present case which carried out in 27.3.1991, the State calculated the value of the fruit bearing trees as in the year 1985 though the landowners were entitled to increase therein in terms of the increase in the price index. However, the learned court below though finding that the increase in the intervening price index was to the tune of 80% but still enhancement to the extent of 60% was granted. Relying upon judgment of this court in Union of India and others vs Krishan Singh 2005 (1) All India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases 90, the submission is that the appellants are entitled to increase to the extent of increase in the price index. R. F. A. Nos. 3049 to 3051 and 3053 of 2005. 7. Another contention raised in the above said appeals is regarding valuation of superstructure acquired. The submission is that the claim made by the landowners in these set of cases was quite reasonable based on the assessment by a qualified person which could not be faulted with and accordingly the deduction made by the court below under various heads was not called for and the landowners should be paid the same amount of compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the learned court below has gone wrong in doing away with the categorisation of land which was determined as Chahi, barani, banjar and gair mumkin kinds of land by the Collector as there was no material evidence on record for the same. There is no sale-deed on record to show the value of the acquired land pertaining to Village Singhpura, which is not located on the main road and is far behind the land of Village Chanalon which is abutting the main Highway. The land on the date of acquisition was being put to agricultural use and the compensation payable therefor should be assessed accordingly and not by considering the fact that to what purpose the same was used after acquisition. Reference of award Ex. A-44 is totally misplaced as the land pertaining to Ex. The land on the date of acquisition was being put to agricultural use and the compensation payable therefor should be assessed accordingly and not by considering the fact that to what purpose the same was used after acquisition. Reference of award Ex. A-44 is totally misplaced as the land pertaining to Ex. A-44 was situated within the municipal limits of Kurali whereas the present land was situated far off from there especially when there are other sale transactions available during the intervening period. 9. As regards the value of trees, the submission is that fair assessment has been made by the learned court below which does not call for any interference. 10. As far as the compensation determined on account of superstructure is concerned, it was submitted that the learned court below has granted much more than what the landowners deserve. The quality of construction in rural areas especially in not of “A” class of which the claim was made by the landowners which is highly excessive. The amount already granted by the learned court below deserves to be decreased what to talk of further increase. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred material. 12. For the purpose of appreciation of contentions raised by the respective parties the most important thing is to locate the acquired land and also land pertaining to the sale instances or other evidence produced on record to judge their comparability with each other. 13. As far as the location of the land is concerned, the same is not disputed that it is located on Chandigarh-Ropar National Highway, where part of land pertaining to Village Chanalon is situated on the main road whereas land pertaining to Village Singhpura is located behind the land of Village Chanalon but not abutting the main road. It is also not disputed that 20-30 factories existing on the acquired land at the time of acquisition, had been released from acquisition. Another factor which is admitted is that prior to the acquisition, the area was declared industrial zone for the purpose of grant of subsidy for setting up of industrial unit. 14. In so far as the evidence led by the landowners is concerned, the land pertaining to sale-deeds Ex. A-2 and A-8 is located on the main Chandigarh-Ropar Highway. Another factor which is admitted is that prior to the acquisition, the area was declared industrial zone for the purpose of grant of subsidy for setting up of industrial unit. 14. In so far as the evidence led by the landowners is concerned, the land pertaining to sale-deeds Ex. A-2 and A-8 is located on the main Chandigarh-Ropar Highway. Both these sale deeds are small pieces of land where sale consideration was paid at an average price of Rs. 6,40,000/- and Rs. 4,80,000/- per acre. The land pertaining to other sale-deeds has not been located on the site plan. The main contention of the learned counsel for the landowners that the same being of Village Chanalon only should be considered as such is misconceived as it would not be fair to rely on a document merely on presumption as it is always the comparability of the evidence vis-a-vis the acquired land, the value of which is to be determined, is to be considered. 15. As far as award Ex. A-44 is concerned, it has come on record that the same pertaining to land falling within the municipal limits of Kurali though located at a distance of 8-9 acres from the last point of the acquired land. The acquisition therein was vide notification dated 7.9.1984, whereas acquisition in the present case was made on 27.3.1991 after a gap of 6½ years. The award Ex. A-44, upheld by this court in Gurjas Pal Singh’s case (supra), cannot be said to be good piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of fair value of the area which has been acquired for the reason that there are sale instances available for the period subsequent thereto and in close proximity of the acquisition of the land. 16. Now this court is left with only two sale-transactions namely Ex. A-2 and A-8 for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. The average per acre pertaining to both these sale-deeds comes to Rs. 5,60,000/- per acre. The land forming part therein is located on the main highway. There is no sale instance pertaining to the land located off the main road. Considering the fact that the land dealt with in both these small pieces of land and the acquisition for a big chunk of land measuring 29.53 acres of land, in my opinion, cut of 50% would be appropriate. There is no sale instance pertaining to the land located off the main road. Considering the fact that the land dealt with in both these small pieces of land and the acquisition for a big chunk of land measuring 29.53 acres of land, in my opinion, cut of 50% would be appropriate. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land can be assessed at Rs. 2,80,000/- per acre. However, the same cannot be said to be value of the entire acquired land for the simple reason that the sale instances which are relied upon pertaining to the land which abuts the main road and any part of land which abuts the main road certainly carries more value because of its strategic location. Accordingly, the landowners whose land is located upto the depth of 100 meters from Chandigarh-Ropar Highway would get compensation @ Rs. 2,80,000/- per acre and for the land behind it, the award of the learned court below is upheld for the reason that there is no material on record to suggest any infirmity therein, which could unable this court to enhance the same further. 17. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation to the effect that the entire land should not have been assessed at the same rate whereas it has different categories, I do not find any merit therein as it has come on record that the area was fast industrializing. Number of industries have already been set up there and some of them have also been released from the acquisition. In such a situation to hold that some part of the land is barani or chahi would not be fare as the land had urban potential. 18. In so far as the claim regarding compensation for fruit bearing trees is concerned, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the landowners. The fact that there is difference of price index to the tune of 80% from the year 1985 to 1991 is not disputed as has been noticed by the learned court below. This court in Ranjit Singh vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh 1983 PLJ 290 held that for determination of value of the fruit bearing trees the difference in the wholesale price index has to be granted after applying Dr. Nijjar’s formula. This court in Ranjit Singh vs The Union Territory of Chandigarh 1983 PLJ 290 held that for determination of value of the fruit bearing trees the difference in the wholesale price index has to be granted after applying Dr. Nijjar’s formula. It is admitted that increase in price index in the intervening period was to the extent of 80%. There was no reason for the court below to have granted to the landowners increase only to the extent of 60%. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below to that extent is modified while holding that for the fruit bearing trees, they shall be entitled to increase to the extent of 80% as against 60% granted by the court below. Similar view was expressed by this court in R. F. A. No. 826 of 2000 Harchal Singh (deceased) through LRs. vs State of Punjab and others, decided on 17.11.2008. 19. As far as the claim regarding superstructure is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award of the learned court below. By minutely examining the claim of the respective parties and in the absence of any evidence led by the State, the learned court below deleted many items, the claim for which was not found admissible and after evaluating the value of the construction, treating the same to be of B-class the amount of compensation was assessed. In such cases certain rough estimates has to be applied as minute examination is not possible especially when there is no defence evidence. Accordingly, as far as the value of superstructure is concerned, the award of the learned court below is upheld. 20. The relief granted to the parties in the set of appeals is summed up as under:- i) The value of the land upto 100 meters on Chandigarh-Ropar Highway is increased from Rs. 2,22,560/- per acre to Rs. 2,80,000/- per acre whereas the award of the learned court below pertaining to the land behind that is upheld. ii) As far as the acquisition of fruit bearing trees on the acquired land is concerned, the landowners shall be entitled to increase @ 80% on the value assessed by applying Dr. Nijjar’s formula as against 60% granted by the learned court below. iii) In so far as the acquisition of superstructure is concerned, the award of the learned court below is upheld. Nijjar’s formula as against 60% granted by the learned court below. iii) In so far as the acquisition of superstructure is concerned, the award of the learned court below is upheld. The landowners are also entitled to the statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. ------------------