R. F. A No. 482 of 1996 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 8.9.2008
1. R. F. A No. 482 of 1996 (O&M)
Gurbachan Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
2. R. F. A No. 415 of 2002 (O&M)
R. S. Saini ….. Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and another ….. Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants in
R. F. A. No. 482 of 1996.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant in
R. F. A. No. 415 of 2002.
Mr.Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of two Regular First Appeal Nos. 482 of
1996 and 415 of 2002 as the same are arising out of one acquisition.
However, the facts are noticed from R. F. A. No. 482 of 1996.
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 23.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired 203
acres of land situated in village Patti Insar and Patti Magdum Jagdan, Tehsil
Panipat, for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation of
land as residential, commercial, industrial and institutional area in Sector-
13, Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of
R. F. A No. 482 of 1996 2
the land @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for chahi and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for
gair mumkind kind of land. The learned Additional District Judge awarded
the compensation @ of Rs. 81/- per square yard.
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 Review Application No. 31/CI of 2007 in R.F.A.
No. 1379 of 1994- Nand Lal and others vs State of Haryana and another,
decided on 31.8.2007, whereby the landowners were granted compensation
@ of Rs. 139/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the State does not dispute this fact.
For the detailed reasons stated in Nand Lal’s case (supra), the
present appeals are allowed in the same terms.
8.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge