RFA No.2621 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2621 of 2007.
Decided on: September 07, 2009.
Smt.Kamla Sharma
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
.. Respondents
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
PRESENT Mr.R.S.Hooda, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G., Haryana,
for the respondents.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
The land of the petitioner was acquired vide
Notification dated 16.03.1999, under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (for short ‘The Act’), which was followed by another
Notification under Section 6 of the Act, for public purpose, namely,
for development and utilization of land as Residential, Commercial,
Institutional and recreational purposes, in Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5-B, 5-C,
and 6 of Panchkula Extension (M.D.C.), Mansa Devi Complex, in
Urban Estate, Panchkula, under the Haryana Urban Development
… 1
RFA No.2621 of 2007
Authority Act, 1977. As the market value assessed by the Collector
for each kinds of land was not acceptable to the land owners, a
reference was made to the District Court for determination of market
value on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The
reference Court determined the market value at the flat rate of
Rs.418/- per square yard, at the time of Notification dated
16.03.1999. As the land acquired as per Notification was 482.17
acres, village Saketri, Hadbast No.376, Tehsil and District
Panchkula, a large number of claimants had filed regular first
appeals. The State of Haryana, as well as HUDA had also filed
appeals aggrieved by the assessment of the market value. The
bunch of 804 appeals was taken up in RFA No.3008 of 2008 in case
Smt.Poonam Vs. State of Haryana.
For the detailed reasons given in the judgment
dated 25.02.2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court remitted the
case back to the reference Court for redetermination of the market
value.
Counsel for the petitioner and State counsel inform
that the subject matter is still pending before the Additional District
Judge, Panchkula.
In view of the said background, the judicial propriety
demands that this appeal should not be decided as a solitary case
separated from the connected case arising out of the same
Notification lest it should prejudice the rights of the parties in the
matter which is pending before the reference Court. The case of the
… 2
RFA No.2621 of 2007
petitioner is admittedly at par with RFA No.3008 of 2006. Following
the judgment in RFA No.3008 of 2006, decided on 25.02.2009, the
appeal is remitted back for adjudication by the reference Court. The
petitioners case will be decided along with the matter of other land
owners whose case has been remanded vide order dated
25.02.2009, in RFA No.3008 of 2008.
The appeal is disposed of in the similar terms as
RFA No.3008 of 2008.
Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court
on 19.09.2009.
The lower Court will take up the case along with
other reference cases which are stated to be fixed for 24.09.2009, at
Panchkula.
(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
September 07, 2009.
rka
… 3