High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt. Savitri And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 17 November, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Savitri And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 17 November, 2008
              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                                    R. F. A No. 158 of 1992

                                                    Date of decision : 17.11.2008

Smt. Savitri and others                                          ... Appellants
                                   vs
State of Haryana and another                                     .... Respondents
Coram:        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:      Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr.Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The landowners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation for the acquisition of land.

Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 31.7.1985, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the State
of Haryana acquired land in Village Dharuhera, for public purpose namely for the
development and utilisation thereof as residential -cum-commercial area of
Dharuhera. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.6.1988
assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre for chahi,
and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for banjar qadim and gair mumkin kind of land.
Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the
landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act,
the learned court below vide award dated 7.10.1991, determined the market value
of the acquired land at Rs. 60/- per square yard.

Learned counsel for the appellants/landowners submitted that the
issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench
judgment of this court in L. P. A. No. 369 of 1996 – Jai Pal vs State of Haryana,
decided on 5.2.1997, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land
was enhanced to Rs. 70/- per square yard.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, does not dispute this
fact.

For the detailed reasons recorded in Jai Pal’s case (supra), the appeal
is allowed in the same terms.

17.11.2008                                                   ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                                Judge