R. F. A. No. 2792 of 2008 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Misc. Nos. 5702/CI of 2008 and
R. F. A. No. 2792 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 16.12.2008
The State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants
vs
Kamleshwar and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State has filed the present appeal against the award dated
26.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad.
Along with the present appeal, an application for condonation of delay of
852 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.
Briefly, the facts are that land situated in the revenue estate of
Villages Ankhir and Chandela, Tehsil Ballabgarh (Faridabad), was acquired
vide Notification dated 11.5.1990, issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, by the State of Haryana for development and
utilisation as residential and commercial area for Sector-21-D, Faridabad.
The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) awarded total
amount of Rs. 8,83,03,383.75 paise as compensation for the acquisition of
the entire land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the
landowners/claimants filed objections. The learned Additional District
Judge vide his award dated 26.10.2005 assessed the compensation @ of Rs.
250/- per square yard.
A perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned court
below relied upon Division Bench judgment of this court in L. P. A. No.
1367 of 2001 Suresh Chand Garg vs State of Haryana and others, decided
on 10.8.2005 (Ex. R-1) and determined the compensation accordingly.
R. F. A. No. 2792 of 2008 (2)
As the value of the land assessed by the learned court below is
in terms of Division Bench judgment of this court in Suresh Chand Garg’s
case (supra), I do not find any merit in the present appeal. As there is no
substance in the appeal and I do not find any reason even to condone the
delay of 852 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal as
well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, are
dismissed.
16.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge