High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt. Uganti Devi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Uganti Devi vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 December, 2008
               In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                                R. F. A No. 3051 of 1992 (O&M)

Smt. Uganti Devi                                              ... Appellant
                                   vs
State of Haryana and another                                  .... Respondents
Coram:         Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:       Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the landowner.

Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The landowner has approached this court for enhancement of
compensation for the acquisition of land.

Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 22.8.1988, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the State
of Haryana acquired land in Village Mewla Maharajpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, district
Faridabad, for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation thereof
as residential and commercial area in Sector-46, Part-II of Faridabad-Ballabgarh.
The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.3.1990 assessed the
market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi, and Rs.
1,50,000/- per acre for narmot and gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the
award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowner/claimant filed objections.
On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award
dated 14.1.1992, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 101/- per
square yard.

Learned counsel for the landowner 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. 920 of 1994 – Horam vs Haryana State, decided on
27.7.2005, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land was
enhanced to Rs. 200/- per square yard.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, does not dispute this
factual position.

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

5.12.2008                                                 ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                             Judge