RFA No.1347 of 1992 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
RFA No.1347 of 1992
Date of decision: 21.10.2008
****
Gram Panchayat, Bargat
.....Applicant(s)/Appellant(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana
...... Respondent(s)
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
Mr.H.S. Hooda, A. G. Haryana with
Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG Haryana,
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This judgment shall dispose of 26 cases i.e. RFA
Nos.1347, 1348, 1660 to 1667, 1774, 1775, 2163 to 2176 of 1992 as
common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
Land in village Bargat H.B. No.346 Tehsil Thanesar
District Kurukshetra was notified vide notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) dated
6.2.1980 published on 19.2.1980 followed by a notification of
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 3.3.1981 for a
public purpose, namely, construction of S.K. Road to village
Bargat. The District Revenue Officer- cum-Collector PWD (B&R),
Kurukshetra awarded the compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre for
RFA No.1347 of 1992 -2-
Chahi and Rs.10,000/- for Gair Mumkin Bara. The acquired land,
however, was classified as under: –
Sr.No. Class of Land acquired Area under acquisition
Kanal Marlas
1. Chahi 14 11
2. Gair mumkin Bara 1 3
3. Gair mumkin School 0 12
4. Gair mimkin Chopal 0 2
5. Gair mumkin Chah 0 3
6. Gair mimkin Rasta 17 2
Grand Total : 33 13
Dis-contended with the award under Section 11 of the
Act pronounced by the Collector, the land owners filed objections
under Section 18 of the Act and claimed an amount of Rs.70,000/-
per acre for chahi land and Rs.1 lac per acre for abadi land.
After considering the evidence of both the parties,
Additional District Judge, Krukshetra vide his award dated
22.8.1991 determined the compensation of the acquired land
measuring 4.21 acres minus 2.14 acres left being comprised in Gair
mumkin Rasta @ Rs.48,000/- per acre. The land owners were also
awarded solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of the
amended Act.
Mr.Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the Court below has erred in not considering sale
deed (Ex.P-1) vide which 4 kanal of land of village Bargat was sold
@ Rs. 70,000/- on 18.6.1986 which comes out to Rs.1,40,000/- per
acre.
On the other hand, Sh. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General,
Haryana assisted by Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana
appearing for the respondent(s) has vehemently argued that the
Court below has erred in not considering sale deeds Exs.R1 to R3
produced by the respondent(s).
RFA No.1347 of 1992 -3-
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the record with their assistance.
The sale deed Ex.P1 is a post notification sale because
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.2.1980 and
published on 19.2.1980 and the sale deed Ex.P-1 is of the year 1986
which cannot be set up as an exemplar for the purpose of
assessment of the amount of compensation of the acquired land.
Thus, the sale deed Ex.P-1 has been rightly ignored by the learned
Court below. Sale deeds Ex.R2 and R3 relied upon by the counsel
for the respondent(s) are also irrelevant for the purpose of
determination of compensation because the amount of sale deeds
(Ex.R-2 and R-3) are less than the award of the Collector because in
the Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 the value of the land is Rs.8,000/- and
Rs.8,986/- per acre respectively whereas, the award of the Collector
is Rs.10,000/- per acre. The sale deed Ex.R-1 is for a value of
Rs.11,425/- but is far away from the acquired land and is not a safe
example to rely upon.
The learned Court below, in my opinion has rightly
relied upon sale deed Ex. P4 dated 15.1.1979 which is at a distance
of only 1 killa from the acquired land and is prior in time to the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I do not find any
merit in the appeals either filed by the claimants or by the State.
In view of the above observations, all the appeals are
hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
21.10.2008 JUDGE
vivek