Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1927 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Amar Pal

2008-11-18

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2008
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of 29 appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1740 to 1762, 2273, 1272 of 1997, 1019, 1028, 1129 and 1009 of 1994 as common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals. 2. Land measuring 31.25 acres situated in village Mangalora Kadim was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) which was published in the official gazette on 26.8.1986 and followed by a notification of declaration dated 28.10.1986 published in the official gazette on 11.11.1986, at the public expense, for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of approaches and guide bunds etc. for proposed Yamuna bridge on Karnal-Meerut road in Karnal District. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal vide his awardNo. 54 for the year 1987-88 dated 18.2.1987 assessed the compensation @ Rs. 25056/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 16032/- per acre for Sailab land and Rs. 2016/- per acre for Gair Mumkin Bundh and Gair Mumkin Thokar. 3. The land owners were aggrieved against the award under Section 11 of the Act, therefore, they filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was claimed that the value of acquired land was Rs. 80,000/-per acre. It was alleged that the acquired land had great potential value on account of its location on the main road and being situated just at a distance of 4 kms. from Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills, Karnal. It was also averred that factories on either side of Kamal Meerut road are in existence. 4. State of Haryana contested the claim petitions and it was alleged that the market value has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector as per the prevalent market rate. 5. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence and after appreciating the same, the Reference Court vide his award dated 4.12.1996 redetermined the compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre besides awarding statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act. 6. Sh. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Sh. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana appearing for the appellants in their appeals has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has committed a palpable error in relying upon the previous award while not appreciating the sale deed Ex. R2 in its true perspective. It is submitted that sale deed Ex. 6. Sh. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Sh. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG, Haryana appearing for the appellants in their appeals has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has committed a palpable error in relying upon the previous award while not appreciating the sale deed Ex. R2 in its true perspective. It is submitted that sale deed Ex. R2 was executed by Baljora s/o Dalai Singh, r/o Mangalora Kadim in favour of Angoori Devi in respect of 28 Bighas of land for just Rs. 12,000/- giving an average of Rs. 2053/- per acre which was not brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officers who had delivered the previous awards of Rs. 40,000/-per acre in respect of the land in villages Sitalgarhi and Andhera. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Reference Court has committed error while awarding compensation at uniform rate @ Rs. 40,000/- for all types of land. 7. Sh. Pritam Singh Saini, learned counsel appearing for the land owners/respondents has submitted that sale deed Ex. R2 does not reflect the true value of the acquired land and has to be ignored in view the fact that even the same has not been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of pronouncing his award on 18.2.1987 as the rate of the acquired land has been assessed @ Rs. 25056/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 16,032/- per acre for Sailab land, Rs. 2016/-per acre for Gair Mumkin Bundh and Gair Mumkin Thokar. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the land-owners that in any case the Reference Court can not award less than the rates awarded by the Collector in view of Section 25 of the Act. Sh. Saini also relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tek Chand and others v. State of Haryana and another, , 1996(1) R.R.R. 680 : 1996 PLJ 13 to contend that if the acquired land is out of the same notification, then there is no reason for adopting different norms at different times in matter of assessment of compensation. He further relied upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in Jangir Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) R.R.R. 316:1990 PLJ 515. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record carefully with their assistance. 9. He further relied upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in Jangir Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) R.R.R. 316:1990 PLJ 515. 8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record carefully with their assistance. 9. It is an admitted fact that land of villages Sitalgarhi, Andhera and Mangalora Kadim was acquired by the same notification issued on 5.8.1986 and for the same purpose. It is also an admitted fact that same award has been announced by the Collector for the acquisition of land of three villages. Prior to the determination of the compensation in respect of land of villages Mangalora Kadim, the compensation in respect of land of villages Sitalgarhi and Andhera was assessed. In respect of land of village Andhera, the then learned District Judge gave his award dated 10.1.1994 in LA case No. 19 of 1993 titled as Jiwa Nand & other v. State of Haryana assessing the market value at a uniform rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Copy of the award is Ex. PX. The said judgment Ex. PX was relied upon by Sh. B.M. Bajaj, Addl. District Judge, Karnal while deciding Land Acquisition case No. 114 of 1994 titled as Sat Pal v. State ofHaryana on 5.2.1996 pertaining to land of village Sitalgarhi. Copy of the award is Ex. PL It is also brought on record that average price of sale deed Ex. R2 is Rs. 2053/- per acre which is less than the award of the Collector, therefore, the same might not have been taken into consideration by the Collector himself while awarding the compensation vide his award No. 54 dated 18.2.1987. Thus, in view of the aforesaid admitted facts which are borne out from the record, the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tek Chand (supra) is fully applicable and it is held that different norms at different times, in matter of assessment of compensation of land acquired out of same notification can not be adopted since there is no other piece of evidence available on record. Thus, the learned Court below has rightly relied upon the previous awards Ex. PI and Ex. PX.10. Thus, the learned Court below has rightly relied upon the previous awards Ex. PI and Ex. PX.10. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the award of a the Court below, therefore, the appeals filed by the State of Haryana as well as Cross-appeals filed by the land owners are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. As regards the appeals namely, RFA Nos. 1009, 1019,1028 and 1129 of 1994 which have been preferred against the decision of the award passed by the Court of Sh. Surinder Sarup, the then District Judge, Karnal in the case of village Sitalgarhi, I do not find any justification for further enhancement of compensation in these appeals. Thus, the aforesaid appeals are dismissed. No costs.