RFA No. 2631 of 1992 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh.
RFA No.2631 of 1992
Decided on November 14,2008.
State of Haryana -- Appellant
vs.
Murti Shri Ram Chander Ji Maharaj --Respondent
Present: Ms.Palika Monga, A.A.G,Haryana for the appellant
None for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:
This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RFA Nos.
2631 and 2632 of 1992, filed by the State of Haryana as common questions
of law and facts are involved therein.
Tersely, the land measuring 6 kanals 1 marla situated in Patti
Mahar,Ambala City, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 ( for short, ‘the Act’) on 08.6.1976 for the public purpose,namely
for widening and straitening the existing Ambala-Naraingarh road. This
notificiation was followed by a notification of declaration issued under
Section 6 of the Act dated 31.8.1977 and finally, an area of 5 kanals 4
marlas was acquired.
The Land Acquisition Collector, vide his award dated
19.1.1978 assessed the market value of the acquired land in two categories
i.e. Abi (including the land under well and path) @ Rs.24960/- per acre,
GairMumkin pond @ Rs.400/-per acre. On reference under Section 18 of
RFA No. 2631 of 1992 2
the Act, the learned Addl.District Judge, Ambala, vide his judgment dated
26.3.1992 maintained the award of the learned Collector as no evidence
was led by the landowners/claimants.
In the present appeals, the State of Haryana is aggrieved only
against the order of learned Addl.District Judge,Ambala, wherein it has
been held that the claimant is entitled to compensation along-with the
benefits of the statutory provisions of the amended Act,1984.
Ms. Palika Monga, learned A.A.G, Haryana, appearing for the
appellant has vehemently argued that since the entire proceedings up to
the stage of Collector, had culminated before 31.4.1982, therefore, the
landowner is not entitled to the benefit of provisions of the amended Act.
In this regard, she has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court i.e.
Improvement Trust, Sangrur v. Gurjit Singh Sandhu & Ors. JT 1996 (2)
S.C.111 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bulandshahr etc. v. Ganga
Sahai & Ors.etc. JT 1996 (7) S.C.120.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the
view that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-
State of Haryana is justified and the order of learned Addl.District Judge,
Ambala, where in the benefit of statutory provisions of amended Act has
been given to the landowners, is without any authority of law.
In view of the above, the present appeals are allowed. It is
ordered that the respondents/landowners are not entitled to the benefit of
statutory provisions of the ameneded Act 1984.
November 14,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge