R.F.A. No. 462 of 1989 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 462 of 1989
Date of decision: 1.10.2008
State of Haryana
.. Appellant
v.
Balbir
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State is in appeal before this Court against the award of the
learned Court below granting benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’) to the respondents.
Briefly, the facts are that land in question in Village Kharkhara,
Tehsil Rewari, District Mohindergarh was acquired vide notification dated
30.1.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Act for the construction of Massani
Barrage by the Irrigation Department. The same was followed by notification
dated 31.1.1979 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition
Collector (for short, `the Collector’) awarded Rs. 10,000/- per acre for chahi land;
Rs. 6,000/- per acre for barani and bhud land and Rs. 4,000/- per acre for gair
mumkin kind of land. Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the respondent
filed objections which were referred to learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul,
who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, determined the
fair value of the chahi land @ Rs. 14,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 8,800/-
per acre for bhur land. The respondent was also awarded solatium @ 30% on the
market price and additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-
A) of the Act.
The primary issue raised in the appeal is grant of benefit under
Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
learned Court below had gone wrong in awarding the aforesaid sum which is not
in conformity with law.
R.F.A. No. 462 of 1989 [ 2]
Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The acquisition in the present case was carried out almost 30 years
ago. As is evident from the opening sheet, the amount in dispute is merely Rs.
864.65. Keeping in view the time gap and smallness of amount, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned award.
Accordingly, without recording any finding on the merits of the
controversy involved, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
1.10.2008
mk