R. F. A No. 2446 of 1998 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 2446 of 1998 (O&M)
Date of decision : 24.9.2008
Satish Chand and others ..... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowners are in appeal before this court against the award of
the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired
land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide
notification dated 22.3.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired 580.73
acres land situated in revenue estate of Villages Jharsa and Islampur, Tehsil and
District Gurgaon, for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation of
land as residential, commercial and institutional area. The Land Acquisition
Collector vide his award dated 16.3.1993 assessed the market value of the land as
under:-
Villages Jharsa and Silokhra
Chahi Rs. 4 lacs per acre
Magda Rs. 3.5 lacs per acre
Abi Rs. 3.5 lacs per acre
Banjar Rs. 2.5 lacs per acre
Gair Mumkin Rs. 2.5 lacs per acre
Village Islampur
Chahi Rs. 2.5 lacs per acre
Magda Rs. 2 lacs per acre
Banjar Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre
Gair Mumkin Rs. 1.5 lacs per acre
On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below
vide award dated 31.3.1998, determined the market value of the acquired land at
Rs. 265/- per square yard.
R. F. A No. 2446 of 1998 2
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim made by
the appellants in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this
court in R.F.A. No. 944 of 1998 – Suraj Bhan and another vs State of Haryana
and others, decided on 13.5.1999, whereby the compensation payable to the
landowners was reduced to Rs. 212/- per square yard.
Learned Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the State did not
dispute this fact.
Since the compensation payable to the landowners for the acquisition
of land was reduced by this court in Suraj Bhan’s case (supra), the present appeal
does not survive.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
24.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge