R. F. A. No. 222 of 1984 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A. No. 222 of 1984 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.8.2008
Smt. Chameli Devi and others ..... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana .... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The claimants are in appeal before this court against the award
of learned Additional District Judge, Jind where on account of acquisition
of land owned by the appellants/claimants, a sum of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard
has been awarded as compensation.
Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification No. 5487-
SC/76/19694 dated 9.6.1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), an area of 3 kanals bearing khasra no. 179/29 at
Jind was acquired for public purpose namely, construction of Bal Bhawan.
The award was announced by the Collector on 16.11.1978, granting
compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard.
Dissatisfied with the award, the appellants/claimants filed
objections claiming compensation at Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. The objections
submitted before the Land Acquisition Collector were referred to the
learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge
vide judgment dated 16.9.1983, relying upon an earlier award dated
18.3.1983, Ex. P-7, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per
sq. yard.
No one has appeared for the appellants. Learned counsel for the
State has been heard. He submitted that determination of compensation in
the present case is just and fair and does not call for any interference. It may
also be noticed that the counsel for the State did not point out as to whether
any other appeal arising out of same acquisition is either pending or
disposed of by this court.
R. F. A. No. 222 of 1984 2
On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the claimants in the
present case submitted objections against the award on account of
acquisition of land for extension of Nehru Park and setting up of a children
park at Jind stating therein that the acquired land had great potential as the
same is situated on the main road. There are commercial establishments near
the acquired land. The appellants/claimants had already laid foundation on
the spot at which substantial amount had been spent.
In the evidence led before the court, besides relying upon the
earlier award of the court below in the case of same acquisition, further
reliance was made to Ex.P-2, a sale-deed dated 8.9.1980, Ex. P-3 sale-deed
dated 5.9.1980, and Ex. P-6 sale-deed dated 26.3.1979. These sale-deeds
were registered after the date of acquisition and cannot possibly be
considered for determination of fair value of the land on the date of
acquisition. Accordingly, the same are ignored being irrelevant. However,
there is some relevance of the sale-deeds produced at Ex. P-4 and P-5,
which are dated 15.3.1976 for sale of two plots measuring 16 sq. yard for a
sum of Rs. 3000/- per acre each which comes to Rs. 187/- per sq. yard. It is
recorded in the Ex. P-7 the award relied upon by the court below that the
land which is forming part of sale-deeds Ex. P-4 and P-5 is part of khasra
no. 174/30 and the land acquired is part of khasra no. 174/29 meaning
thereby the location of the land being part of sale-deeds Ex. P-4 and P-5 is
near by the land which is subject matter of acquisition in the present case.
Further as is evident from the record, the acquisition is for extension of
Nehru Park and setting up a children park at Jind. The fact that the
acquisition is for public park, it means that the area cannot be said to be
agricultural in its kind.
Keeping these facts into consideration, in my opinion, the
compensation as determined by the learned court below for the acquisition
of the land is not appropriate and the same deserves some enhancement.
Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants/claimants shall be entitled to
compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 120/- per sq. yard. They
shall also be entitled to statutory benefits under the Act.
The appeal is allowed in above terms with costs.
28.8.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge