Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 976 (PNJ)

Arjan Singh (Died) By Lrs. v. State Of Haryana

2004-08-30

G.S.SINGHVI, VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the indirect rejection of their claim for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per acre besides the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), the appellants have filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent for modification of judgment of the learned Single Judge in Regular First Appeal No. 2756 of 1988 and grant of compensation in terms of the prayer made therein. 2. A perusal of the record shows that vide notification dated 11.3.1981 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed to acquire 286.27 acres of land of village Ratgal for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of the land as residential and commercial areas of Sector 7, Kurukshetra. On measurement, the actual area of the land sought to be acquired was found to be 180.11 acres. The Land Acquisition Collector passed two awards dated 7.5.1985 and 25.6.1986. By the first award, he determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 44,800/- per acre except the land comprised in Khasra No. 48 measuring 17 kanals 6 marlas. The reference applications filed by the land owners (including the appellants) under Section 18 of the Act were decided by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra by two separate awards dated 29.2.1988 and 7.10.1988 and the market value of the land was determined at the rate of Rs. 65,340/- and Rs. 90,000/- per acre, respectively. 3. The appellants challenged award dated 7.10.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge by filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Act which was registered at Regular First Appeal No. 2756 of 1988. They prayed for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre with statutory benefits in terms of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, as amended in 1984. 4. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal and determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre. He also directed that the appellants be granted statutory benefits in terms of amended Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 5. 4. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeal and determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre. He also directed that the appellants be granted statutory benefits in terms of amended Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 5. Shri Pritam Saini referred to notification dated 29.6.1973 vide which the State Government had acquired the land falling within the revenue estates of village Bazidpur (Hadbast No. 358), Bir Pipli (Hadbast No. 359), Pipli (Hadbast No. 360), Devi Dass Pura (Hadbast No. 361), Umri (Hadbast No. 370), Palwal (Hadbast No. 373), Sunderpur (Had-bast No. 375), Dera Kalan (Hadbast No. 379), Rargal (Hadbast No. 376) and Dera Khurd (Hadbast No. 391), Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial areas of Sector 7, Kurushetra and argued that the appellants be awarded compensation at least at the rate at which compensation was awarded to the landowners whose land was acquired in pursuance of the aforementioned notification. He relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Amar Lal v. State of Haryana, 1990(2) R.R.R. 479 : (1990) 2 Rev. L.R. 70 and argued that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation at par with the landowners of village Dera Kalan, who were appellants in the case of Amar Lal. Shri Saini submitted that even though, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Amar Lals case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge who decided Regular First Appeal No. 2756 of 1988, the Court may now take judicial notice of the fact that in relation to similarly situated parcels of land which were acquired vide notification dated 29.6.1973 for the same purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of the land as residential and commercial areas of Sector 7, Kurukshetra, a learned Single Judge had earlier awarded compensation at a higher rate and direct the respondents to pay enhanced compensation to the appellants. In support of this argument, Shri Saini relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991 P.L.J. 20. In support of this argument, Shri Saini relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in Harchal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1991 P.L.J. 20. In reply to the Courts query, the learned counsel made a statement that the Letters Patent Appeal and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Amar Lals case (supra) were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court, respectively. 6. The learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana argued that the compensation awarded to the appellants should not be enhanced on the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Amar Lals case (supra) because the notification issued for acquisition of their land was different from the notification issued for acquisition of the land falling in the revenue estate of village Dera Kalan and there was a time gap of eight years between the two acquisitions. He, however, conceded that the acquisition of the land covered by the two notifications was for the same public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation thereof for residential and commercial areas of Kurukshetra. 7. We have given serious thought to the respective arguments and scrutinised the record. A recapitulation of facts shows that the land which was subject matter of Amar Lals case (supra) was acquired vide notification dated 29.6.1973 for establishing Urban Estate at Kurukshetra. The Land Acquisition Collector fixed the market value of the land blockwise in the following manner:- BLOCK A Land abutting on Pipli @ Rs. 19,600/- per acre Kurukshetra Road 20 deep Gairmumkin land . @ Rs. 6,800/- per acre BLOCK -B Land (Chahi) @ Rs. 17,600/- per acre Barani Land @ Rs. 13,200/- per acre Banjar Land @ Rs. 8,800/- per acre BLOCK C Land beyond Umri Road @ Rs. 16,000/- per acre 8 Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra to whom the applications filed by the landowners under Section 18 of the Act were referred, maintained the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In the appeals filed by the landowners, the learned Single Judge, after a threadbare analysis of the evidence produced by the parties including various sale transactions and development potentials of the land, concluded that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 37/- per square yard which is equivalent to Rs. 1,70,080/- per acre. In the appeals filed by the landowners, the learned Single Judge, after a threadbare analysis of the evidence produced by the parties including various sale transactions and development potentials of the land, concluded that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 37/- per square yard which is equivalent to Rs. 1,70,080/- per acre. No doubt, the land belonging to the appellants was acquired after a gap of eight years, but the purpose of the acquisition was akin to the public purposes for which the land of Amar Lal and others falling within the revenue estate of village Dera Kalan was acquired. We are sure if the judgment of Amar Lals case (supra) had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, who decided the appeal of the appellants, then he would have awarded compensation at least at par with Amar Lal and others because it is an undisputed position that the land which was subject matter of acquisition in Amar Lals case (supra) is similar to the land belonging to the appellants and the purpose for which the two acquisitions were made are akin to each other. 9. In view of the above, we are convinced that the compensation payable to the appellants deserves to be enhanced so as to bring it at par with the compensation awarded in Amar Lals case (supra). 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified by directing the respondent to pay compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 37/- per square yard i.e. Rs. 1,70,080/- per acre. They shall be entitled to statutory benefits in terms of the amended Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act in relation to the enhanced amount of compensation. The enhanced compensation alongwith other benefits be paid to the appellants within a period of four months from the date of submission/receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs.