Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 615 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Bhawani Sahai

2000-05-31

J.S.NARANG

body2000
ORDER J.S. Narang, J.(Oral) - This judgment would dispose of RFA No. 1320 of 1983 and X-Objections No. 20-CI of 1984 as the same have arisen out of one and the same award. 2. In pursuance of the notification dated 11.8.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Government of Haryana and thereafter issuance of notification dated 27.8.1981 under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 8.16 acres was acquired at village Mohindergarh, Tehsil and Distt. Mohindergarh for public purposes i.e. for the construction of Canal Colony at Mohindergarh. However, on actual measurement by the field staff on the basis of demarcation given by the department concerned, it was found that the land measured 6.16 acres. The difference of two acres was perhaps due to miscalculation of the area or approximate area having been taken at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 24000/- per acre vide award dated 15.2.1982. The landowners were not satisfied with the compensation so awarded. As a sequel thereto, the reference had been sought under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement in the compensation on the broad averments that the Land Acquisition Collector had not taken into account the relevant factors while assessing the market value of the acquired area. The said reference was resisted by the appellant and in support of the award it had been averred that the correct compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and all the mitigating aspects and circumstances had been taken into consideration while arriving at conclusion of the rate of Rs. 24000/- per acre. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, an issue had been struck as to whether correct compensation has been paid to the petitioner or not and if not, how much they are entitled to. The learned Additional District Judge has specifically noticed the statement of RW1 made on 16.7.1983 when he stated in the cross-examination that about two years back, the price of the acquired area was Rs. 30 to 40 per sq.yards and at present the market value of the said area is about Rs. 60/70 per sq.yard. The learned Additional District Judge has specifically noticed the statement of RW1 made on 16.7.1983 when he stated in the cross-examination that about two years back, the price of the acquired area was Rs. 30 to 40 per sq.yards and at present the market value of the said area is about Rs. 60/70 per sq.yard. It has also been admitted that the acquired area abuts the main road leading to the railway station and Anaj Mandi and that the acquired area has great potential value not even now but even at that time the area had been acquired. It has also been averred that the acquired area could have been converted for raising the houses and shops etc. and in that eventuality could have fetched far more price than for what it has been acquired. In the vicinity of the area, the building of Civil Hospital, building of State Bank of India and also the Police Station were in existence. Apart from this, RW2 Shri D.S. Gupta, Sub Divisional Officer, Mohindergarh, admitted in his cross-examination that the area is in the process of being developed as the commercial shops have also come into existence and even residential complex is also coming up. Though the cross- objector has made reference to the sale deed Ex.PC dated 7.10.1980 where the rates so determined were about Rs. 95/- per square yard and in this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the area in question which has been stated in the sale deed is too small. The rule is smaller the area expensive it is. Thus, the sale deed is of no help for coming to the conclusion as to what shall be the rate to which cross-objector is entitled to. 5. I am of the view that the learned Additional District Judge has examined all the aspects and has discussed the effect of the sale deeds which have been brought on record and in any case, as per the admission of the witness, i.e. RW1 who is none else but Patwari Halqa who has stated that the rate about two years ago i.e. in the year 1981 was Rs. 30/40 per sq.yard and at the same time, the present rate is not less than Rs. 60/70. 30/40 per sq.yard and at the same time, the present rate is not less than Rs. 60/70. As such, the learned Additional District Judge has come to the correct conclusion while awarding that the cross-objector was entitled to enhancement of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 55/- per sq.yard. I find no ground to interfere in the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge dated 25.7.1983. Further, I am not convinced that the cross-objector is entitled to enhancement of the amount any further which has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. As such, the appeal and the X-objections-objections are dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.