High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

The State Of Haryana vs Girdhara Singh And Another on 23 April, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Haryana vs Girdhara Singh And Another on 23 April, 2009
              In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

                                               R. F. A No. 639 of 1994 (O&M)


The State of Haryana                                         ... Appellant
                                     vs
Girdhara Singh and another                                   .... Respondents
Coram:        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal


Present:      Ms. Ritu Bahri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. S. K. S. Bedi, Advocate, for the respondents.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The State has filed the present appeal seeking reduction of
compensation for the acquisition of land.

Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 4.3.1983, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the State
of Haryan acquired land situated in Villages Patti Mehar, Tehsil and District
Ambala, for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial
area in Sector-8 at Ambala. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market
value at Rs. 40,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 32,000/- per acre for barani and Rs.
16,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the
Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section
18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired
land at Rs. 100/- per square yard.

Learned Deputy Advocate General very fairly conceded that the issue
involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in
RFA No. 755 of 1992 Satish Kumar vs The State of Haryana, decided on
8.4.1994, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced
to Rs. 112/- per square yard.

Since this court has already further enhanced the compensation
payable to the landowners, no case for reduction therein is made out. Accordingly,
for the detailed reasons recorded in Satish Kumar’s case (supra), the appeal is
dismissed.

23.4.2009                                               ( Rajesh Bindal)
vs.                                                           Judge