High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Sarup And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 30 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Sarup And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 30 May, 2009
              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                         RFA No. 3962 of 2001 (O&M)

Ram Sarup and others                                           ... Appellants
                                                vs
The State of Haryana and others                                .... Respondents
Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:     Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. B. S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Rajesh Bindal J.

This appeal has been filed by the landowners seeking further
enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

Briefly, the facts are that the land situated in Village Shadipur, Tehsil
and District Sonepat was acquired vide notification dated 17.5.1990, issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) for residential
and commercial area in Sector 12, Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector (for
short, `the Collector’) determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.
1,70,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award, the land owners filed objections
which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who considering
the material placed on record by the parties, determined market value of the
acquired land @ Rs. 120/- per square yard.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the issue involved
in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA
No.431 of 2000- State of Haryana and another vs Jaipal and another decided on
1.12.2008, whereby the land owners whose land is situated on Sonepat-Bahalgarh
road upto a depth of 100 meters therefrom were held entitled to the compensation
@ Rs. 160/- per square yard, whereas the land owners whose land situated behind
that were held entitled to the compensation @ Rs. 135/- per square yard.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the abovesaid factual
position.

For the reasons recorded in Jai Pal’s case, the present appeal is
disposed of in the same terms.

30.5.2009                                                 ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                             Judge