R.F.A. No. 2372 of 1990 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 2372 of 1990
Date of decision: September 11 , 2008
Umrao and others
.. Appellants
v.
Land Acquisition Collector and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The appellants are in appeal before this Court against the award of
the learned Court below for further enhancement in the compensation of the
acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 16.7.1980, issued
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), State of
Haryana acquired 26 kanals 15 marlas land beloging to the appellants for
construction of a canal. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector’)
vide his award dated 11.1.1981, determined the market value at Rs. 5,500/- per
acre for Bhood land and Rs. 11,000/- per acre for Chahi land. The learned
District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, awarded compensation @
Rs. 15,000/- per acre for the acquired land. Still dissatisfied, the appellants have
approached this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As far as claim of compensation is concerned, as against the award
of the Collector determining the value of the land at Rs. 5,500/- per acre for Bhood
land and Rs. 11,000/- per acre for chahi land, the learned Court below determined
the compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per acre relying upon sale deed dated 26.3.1981
(Ex. P.4) for 13 kanals 15 marlas, which though was after the acquisition. As
against this, earlier sale deeds were discarded as the same were not showing the
correct picture of the value of the land in the area.
Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any
illegality in the award of the learned Court below as regards the valuation of the
land. Accordingly, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out.
R.F.A. No. 2372 of 1990 [2]
As far as claim of severance charges is concerned, the learned Court
below had granted the same @ 5% of the value of land. A perusal of the evidence
on record shows that a clear cut case for severance, the manner in which the land
has been bifurcated was not made out from the statements or the site plan on
record. Keeping in view this evidence, I do not find any illegality in the grant of
severance @ 5% by the learned Court below.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
September 11, 2008
mk