Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1623 (PNJ)

Lakhmi v. State of Haryana

2003-12-03

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
ORDER Viney Mittal, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of RFA No. 21 of 1998 and RFA No. 2793 of 1987, as common question of law arises in both the cases, whereas RFA No. 21 of 1988 has been filed by the claimant land owners claiming further enhancement, the State of Haryana has also felt dissatisfied has chosen to file RFA No. 2793 of 1987. 2. Vide notification dated May 29, 1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land in question belonging to the claimant land owners was acquired. Vide award dated March 27, 1986, the learned Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value @ Rs. 28,000/- per acre. The claimant land owners were not satisfied with the assessment and claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Reference was accordingly made. 3. During the course of proceedings before the learned Additional District Judge, the parties led their evidence. The claimants placed reliance upon documents Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-2, which are the two sale deed dated January 15, 1985 and September 21, 1982, respectively. Exhibit A-3 was a copy of the Aks Sajra showing the location of the land. Exhibits A-4 and A-5 are copies of the Jamabandis. 4. In contract, the respondents placed reliance on two sale deeds Exhibit R-1 and Exhibit R-2 dated March 20, 1986 and May 26, 1987, respectively. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, taking into consideration the location of the land, the prices prevailing in the locality and the potential of the acquired land, chose to place reliance upon Exhibit A-2 to hold that the sale transaction Exhibit A-2 afforded best guide to assess the market value of the land. In the aforesaid sale instance Exhibit A-2, the price of 10 marlas of land was Rs. 7,500/-. Accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge assessed the market value of the acquired land as Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. The claimant land owners were also held entitled to the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act. 6. The claimant land owners have still felt dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the present appeal. 7. As noticed above, the State of Haryana has also felt dissatisfied with the enhancement and has filed RFA No. 2793 of 1987, challenging the enhancement. 8. I have heard Sh. C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sh. 6. The claimant land owners have still felt dissatisfied and have approached this Court through the present appeal. 7. As noticed above, the State of Haryana has also felt dissatisfied with the enhancement and has filed RFA No. 2793 of 1987, challenging the enhancement. 8. I have heard Sh. C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sh. C.R. Dahiya, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 9. Sh. C.B. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that in fact the acquisition in question took place on May 29, 1985 and the sale instance Exhibit A-2 was dated September 21, 1982 and as such the claimant land owners were also entitled to increase thereupon. 10. On the other hand, Sh. C.R. Dahiya, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and has argued that in fact there was no justification with the learned Additional District Judge to have enhanced the market value from Rs. 28,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector to Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. According to Sh. Dahiya, there is nothing on record to show that the land covered under sale deed Exhibit A-2 was in any manner similar to the one which had been acquired. 11. I have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. In my considered view, there is no scope for interference in the present appeals. 13. The learned Additional District Judge, while taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, has come to a categorical finding that although the land Exhibit A-2 was situated within the village, but the fact could not be lost sight of that the said sale pertains to the year 1982, whereas the acquisition in question has taken place in the year 1985. On that basis, the time gap between the sale deed and the acquisition proceedings has been off set because of the location of the land covered under Exhibit A-2. The learned Additional District Judge has also taken note of the fact that the prices must have increased since the year 1982 but while considering the aforesaid increase, he has also taken into consideration that the land covered under Exhibit A-2 was in fact situated in the village. The learned Additional District Judge has also taken note of the fact that the prices must have increased since the year 1982 but while considering the aforesaid increase, he has also taken into consideration that the land covered under Exhibit A-2 was in fact situated in the village. All these facts having been duly taken into consideration, the assessment of Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre being the market value, cannot be stated to be erroneous in any manner. 14. Sh. Goel has not been able to point out any other evidence on record to persuade me to take any different view than the one taken by the learned Additional District Judge. Nothing has been shown that the claimant land owners were in fact entitled to any higher value. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Both appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.