R. F. A No. 1442 of 1989 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 8.9.2008
1. R. F. A No. 1442 of 1989 (O&M)
Jagdish Chand and others ..... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
2. R. F. A No. 1932 of 1989 (O&M)
Smt. Kiran ….. Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and another ….. Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Chater Bhuj Goel, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent no. 1.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of two Regular First Appeal Nos. 1442
and 1932 of 1989 as the same are arising out of one acquisition. However,
the facts are noticed from R. F. A. No. 1432 of 1989.
The landowners are in appeal before this court against the
award dated 9.3.1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal,
seeking enhancement of compensation on account of acquisition of their
land.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that land measuring
6656 kanals 19 marlas situated in Village Bohli, Tehsil Panipat, District
Karnal, was acquired vide Notification dated 29.3.1985, issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State of Haryana for
installation of Refinery. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated
26.3.1987 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 20,000/- per acre for
chahi/nehri, Rs. 10,000/- per acre for barani and Rs. 5,000/- per acre for
banjar kind of land. The learned Additional District Judge upheld the award
of the learned Collector.
R. F. A No. 1442 of 1989 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. 2612 of 1991 – Balkar Singh and
another vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 14.11.2003, whereby
the landowners were granted compensation @ of Rs. 26,624/- per acre for
nehri/chahi, Rs. 13,333/- per acre for barani and Rs. 6,650/- per acre for
banjar kind of land.
Learned State counsel does not dispute this fact.
For the detailed reasons stated in Balkar Singh’s case (supra),
the present appeals are allowed in the same terms.
8.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge