R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 (O&M)
and Cross-objections No. 75-CI of 1990
Date of decision: 18.11.2008
State of Haryana
.. Appellant
v.
Murlidhar (deceased) through LRs and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana for the State.
Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below
seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired
land.
The land owners have also filed cross objections seeking further
enhancement of compensation.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 19.7.1978, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), State of
Haryana acquired the land in village Mujessar for development and utilization of
the same as Sector 23, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the
Collector’) vide his award dated 4.12.1979, determined the market value of land at
Rs. 9,600/- per acre. However, Additional District Judge, Faridabad, on
reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired
land @ Rs. 29/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of the
acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not in consonance with
the evidence produced on record. The evidence, produced by the State, was in the
form of copies of awards (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2), pertaining to the acquisition of land
in village Gaumchi, which is quite close to the acquired land, where the value of
the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 60/- per marla and Rs. 432/- per marla
respectively. He further submitted that grant of additional compensation @ 12%
per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is totally uncalled for because
acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated 19.7.1978 issued
R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 [2]
under Section 4 of the Act. Even the award of the Collector was passed on
4.12.1979, i.e., before the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act came into
force. Reliance was placed upon Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop
Singh and another, (2003) 2 SCC 484.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted
that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below even required
further increase by this court, considering the evidence produced by them on
record. He submitted that in any case, there is no scope for reduction as the value
has been assessed relying upon a judgment of this Court pertaining to the
acquisition at the same time for the land forming part of the same village. As far
as the issue regarding grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is
concerned, he could not dispute that the same is covered against him vide
judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority’s case (supra).
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As far as value of the land is concerned, in my considered opinion,
fair assessment has been made by the learned court below relying upon a judgment
of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1325 of 1983–Prem Nath v. State of Haryana, where
for acquisition vide notification dated 1.6.1976 for the land pertaining to Village
Mujessar, this Court assessed the value at Rs. 23.50 paise per square yard, vide
judgment dated 16.12.1988. The acquisition in the present case was made vide
notification dated 19.7.1978 and the land pertained to the same village, i.e.,
Mujessar. Considering the judgment in Prem Nath’s case (supra) and granting the
benefit of time gap in two notifications, the value of the acquired land in the
present case was assessed at Rs. 29/- per square yard. As against this, reliance of
learned counsel for the State was on the awards of the learned court below,
pertaining to the acquisition of land of revenue estate of Village Gaumchi, though
for Sector 23, Faridabad. Both these awards have rightly not been relied upon by
the learned court below for two reasons, namely, that the acquired land in the
present case formed part of the revenue estate of village Mujessar and secondly,
the awards (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) were passed by the learned court below, which
may have been subject-matter of further appeal before this court, whereas the
judgment of Prem Nath’s case (supra) was delivered by this court in which the
issue under consideration was for determination of the value of the acquired land
pertaining to the same village.
For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the
submissions of either of the parties, as far as value of the land is concerned.
R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 [3]
Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross objections on that
account are dismissed.
With regard to grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, it
would be relevant to refer to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1) of the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which are extracted below:
30. Transition provisions- (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A)
of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section
15 of this Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also
to, and in relation to,-
(a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the
principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date
of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill,
1982, in the (House of the People) in which no award has been
made by the Collector before that date;
(b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the
principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an
award has been made by the Collector before the date of
commencement of this Act.”
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority’s
case (supra) considered the issue in detail, wherein it was held that if the case of
the land owner does not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30
(1) of the amending Act, he is not entitled to the benefits available under Section
23(1-A) of the Act. As is evident from the facts of the present case, the case of the
land owners does not fall within either of the clauses as the acquisition of land and
the award of the Collector is before the cut off date.
Accordingly, the award of the learned court below to the extent it
grants benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, is set aside.
The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
18.11.2008
mk