RFA No.3286 of 1992 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No. 3286 of 1992
Decided on February 05,2009.
Giani Ram --Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another -- Respondents
Present: Mr.Kamal Narula,Advocate,for the appellant
Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana, for the respondents.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of 11 Regular First Appeals
filed by the landowners/ claimants bearing Nos. 3286, 3287, 3288,
3289, 3290, 3291, 3292 of 1992, 203, 204, 1237 and 1238 of 1993,
being aggrieved against the award of Addl. District Judge, Rohtak
dated 30.7.1992. Since identical question of law and facts are
involved there in, therefore, these are being disposed of by a
common judgment. The facts are taken from RFA No. 3286 of 1992.
Vide notification dated 22.2.1983 issued under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,’the Act’), land
measuring 60.02 acres situated in villages Sankhol and
Bahadurgarh was acquired for the public purpose, namely for
RFA No.3286 of 1992 2
development and utilization of land as residential and commercial
area in Sector 7, Bahadurgarh. It was followed by a notification of
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act which was published
in the Government Gazette on 23.2.1985. Although, an area of
60.02 acre was mentioned in the notification, yet on actual
measurement, it was found to be 60.01 acres.
The Land Acquisition Collector (for short,’the Collector’)
vide his award NO.17 dated 22.2.1987, determined the market
value of the acquired land as under:
Nehri Chahi Barani Banjar Gair Mumkim
Kadim
1.Sankhol Rs.50,000/- 50,000/- 35,000/- 30,000/- 30,000/-
2.Bahadur- Rs.50,000/- 50,000/- 30,000/- 25,000/- 25,000/-
garh.
Dis-satisfied with the award of the Collector, the
claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, in which it
was, inter-alia, claimed that the value of acquired land is not less
than Rs.500/- per square yard being adjacent to the National
Highway No.10 having potentiality of being developed as residential,
commercial and industrial area.
The State of Haryana contested the claim and averred in their
reply that neither market price of the acquired land is Rs.500/-
per square yard nor it has any unique feature for being developed
as a residential, commercial or industrial area.
In order to substantiate their claim, the claimants examined
Maru Ram as PW-1,Ranbir Singh as PW-2, Attar Singh as PW-3
and relied upon other documents. The claimants also relied upon a
decision of Mr.V.M.Jain, District Judge, Rohtak, dated 07.12.1990
RFA No.3286 of 1992 3
(Ex.PA). However, the learned Reference Court relied upon a
decision of this Court (Mark A) passed in RFA No.10 of 1983
(Anandi Lal Sathia V. State of Haryana), decided by Hon’ble
Mr.Justice N.C.Jain on 9.11.1989, where the compensation in
respect of land of villages Hassanpur Parnala and Bahadurgarh was
assessed @ Rs. 13/- per square yard for the acquisition of land in
the year 1977, the learned Reference Court granted an increase of
about Rs.8/- for six years (January 1977 to February 1983) and
awarded compensation is @ Rs. 21/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that
the learned Reference Court has erred in not relying upon the award
Ex.PA pertaining to acquisition dated 06.1.1977 whereby 272.82
acres of land situated in villages Hassanpur and Bahadurgarh, was
acquired for the puiblic purpose, namely for development and
utilization of land as industrial area. In the said case, vide award
No.30 for the year 1976-77 dated 2.2.1977, the Collector had
granted compensation @ Rs. 20560/- per acre for the land falling in
Block ‘A’ and @ Rs.20,000/- per acre for the land falling in Block ‘B’.
In the aforesaid case, the judgment in the case of Anandi Lal Sathia
v. State of Haryana (Mark A) was also tendered to contend that
value of the land of village Parnala, Hassanpur and Bahadurgarh
has already been fixed @ Rs. 13/- per square yard. But in the said
case, the learned District Judge relied upon the decision of the High
Court in the case of Maya Ram rendered in RFA No.1501 of 1982
vide which value of the land acquired in village Hassanpur on
6.1.1977 was assessed @ Rs.18.60/- per square yard. In the said
RFA No.3286 of 1992 4
case (Ex.PA), the learned District Judge relied upon the award
rendered in RFA No.1501 of 1982 and did not rely upon the award
rendered in RFA No.10 of 1983 on the ground that the award
passed in RFA No.1501 of 1982 relates to land of village
Hassanpur, which was subject matter of acquisition of the case
( Ex.PA), whereas the land involved in the acquisition of RFA No. 10
of 1983 was of village Hassanpur Parnala and Bahadurgarh.
On the contrary, Mr.Rajiv Kawatra,learned Senior Deputy
Advocate General,Haryana, has vehemently contended that the
close reading of award Ex.PA would reveal that the learned District
Judge had relied upon the award passed in the case of RFA
No.1501 of 1982 which was in relation to acquisition of land of
village Hassanpur and in that case (Ex.PA), land of village
Hassanpur alone was acquired. Whereas in the present case land of
village Bahadurgarh has been acquired whereas judgment Mark
‘X’ pertains to the acquisition dated 06.1.1977 vide which 112.31
acres of land was acquired for the purpose of development and
utilization as industrial area in the revenue estate of villages
Hassanpur Parnala and Bahadurgarh. It is contended that since In
the present case, acquisition relates to village Sankhol and
Bahadurgarh, therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly
relied upon judgment Mark ‘X’ and had awarded compensation @
Rs.21/- per square yard.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the record.
No doubt, judgment Ex.PA relates to the acquisition dated
RFA No.3286 of 1992 5
6.1.1977 in respect of village Hassanpur and while relying upon the
decision of the High Court in the case of Maya Ram rendered in
RFA No.1501 of 1982 in which land of village Hassanpur was
acquired on 6.1.1977, the rates were fixed at Rs.18.60 per square
yard. So, the learned District Judge has held that the market value of
the acquired land in the said case has to be assessed at the rate of
Rs.18.60 per square yard in view of the judgment Ex.P-2 rendered
by the Hon’ble High Court with regard to the land of village
Hassanpur.
In the judgment Mark ‘X’ rendered in RFA No.10 of
1983, land of village Hassanpur Parnala and Bahadurgarh was
acquired but in the present case only land of village Bahadurgarh
and Sankhol has been acquired. No land of village Hassanpur has
been acquired in the present case, therefore, if the price of land of
Bahadurgarh has already been determined by the High Court @
Rs.13/- per square yard on 9.11.1989, then there is no question
arises to rely upon the order of the District Judge vide which land
of village Hassanpur has been acquired @ Rs.18.60/- per square
yard.
As per the above discussion, I am of the considered
view that the learned Reference Court has committed no error in
relying upon judgment Mark ‘X,’ the decision of the High Court
rendered in RFA No.10 of 1983 in the case of Anandi Lal Sathia v.
Stateof Haryana and assessing the compensation after giving
appreciation for six years.
No other point has been argued before me by the
RFA No.3286 of 1992 6
learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in
the appeals filed by the claimants and the same are here by
dismissed. No costs.
February 05,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge