State Of Haryana vs Gopi Chand @ Gopi Ram on 18 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Gopi Chand @ Gopi Ram on 18 December, 2008
              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                               R. F. A No. 1017 of 1991 (O&M)

State of Haryana                                               ..... Appellant
Gopi Chand @ Gopi Ram                                          ..... Respondent
Coram:        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:      Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

              Mr. S. K. Vij, Advocate, for the respondent.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The State has filed the present appeal against the award of the
learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, ‘the Act’) seeking reduction in the compensation for the acquired land.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide
notification dated 10.1.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired the land
situated in revenue estate of Village Selokhra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for the
development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and industrial area
at Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the land
at Rs. 60,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 50,000/- per acre for magda and Rs. 40,000/-
per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. On reference under Section 18 of the Act,
the learned court below vide award dated 14.1.1991, determined the market value
of the acquired land @ Rs. 136/- per square yard upto depth of 10 yards from the
National Highway No. 8 and @ Rs. 68/- per square yard for the rear portion
beyond the said depth.

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the claim
made in the appeal is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this court
in R. F. A. No. 2 of 1991 Azad Singh vs The State of Haryana and another,
decided on 30.9.1997, whereby award of the Reference Court was upheld. The
amount of compensation assessed in the present case is also in the same terms.
Accordingly, the claim made in the appeal does not survive.

For the reasons recorded in Azad Singh’s case (supra), the present
appeal is dismissed.

18.12.2008                                                ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                             Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *