Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 105 (PNJ)

Faquir Chand v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-07

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2010
Judgment RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two Review Application No.82-CI of 2009 in RFA No.1419 of 1993 in LAC Case No.121 of 1991 and Review application no.83-CI of 2009 in RFA No.1420 of 1993 in LAC Case No.55 of 1991 which have been filed for recalling the order passed by this Court on 18.3.2009 whereby a batch of four Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.1419, 1420, 2066 and 2067 of 1993 were disposed of on the statement made by counsel for the State that all the four appeals are covered by the decision of this Court rendered in RFA no.755 of 1992 titled as Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (1994-3) PLR 243, on the ground that in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), question of determination of compensation in respect of Khasra Nos.25/1/2 and 25/1/3 was left open and as such the present appeals bearing RFA No.1419 and 1420 of 1993 in which the acquired land falls in Khasra Nos.25/1/2 and 25/1/3 are not covered by the rfa No.1419 of 1993 said decision rendered in Satish Kumar (supra ). Notice in the application was issued but despite granting opportunity to the respondent/state, no reply has been filed. Brief facts of the case are that with the issuance of notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act) dated 4.3.1983, 133.68 acres of land of village Patti Mehar, Hadbast No.58 and village Sondha Hadbast No.114, Tehsil and District Ambala was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development of residential and commercial area in Sector 8. The Collector vide his award No.13 dated 23.2.1988 determined the market value of the land in different categories, namely, for Chahi land compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, for Barani land Rs.32,000/- per acre and for Gair Mumkin land Rs.16,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the collector, the claimants filed reference under Sec.18 of the Act which was adjudicated by the Civil Court under Sec.23 of the Act whereby compensation of the acquired land of different Khasra Numbers was assessed as under: rectangle No.1, Killa No.25 - @ Rs.400/- per sq. yard Rectangle No.13, killa no.5/1 - @ Rs.200/- per sq. yard Rectangle No.9/killa No.22/1/2 rectangle No.17, killa No.6/1, 7/1 and -Rectangle No.18, Killa No.1/3/2 min - @ Rs.100/- per sq. yard Rectangle No.13, killa no.5/1 - @ Rs.200/- per sq. yard Rectangle No.9/killa No.22/1/2 rectangle No.17, killa No.6/1, 7/1 and -Rectangle No.18, Killa No.1/3/2 min - @ Rs.100/- per sq. yard Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that while deciding the case of Satish Kumar (supra), the question of determination in respect of Khasra nos.25/1/2 and 25/1/3 was not redetermined and the following observations were made by this Court. "before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to rfa No.1419 of 1993 observe that no correction in the evaluation of the acquired land in Rectangle no.1 Khasra Nbo.25/1/2 and 25/1/3 is needed simply for the reason that the counsel for the parties did not address any argument about the aforementioned khasra numbers, I specifically put it to Mr. Goyal whether any appeal has been filed either by the State of Haryana or by the owners of the aforementioned khasra numbers but he was not in a position to throw any light, although, he took pains to see the various appeals which were listed for hearing. In view thereof, this court is not touching the market value of the acquired land of aforementioned khasra numbers. If any appeals have been filed by either of the parties pertaining to the acquisition of the khasra numbers the same would be seen as and when the cases are listed. In case, no appeal has been filed by either of the parties pertaining to the acquisition of aforementioned khasra numbers, the evaluation given by the Land Acquisition Court would naturally remain intact. " 2. The argument raised by the counsel for the applicant/appellant could not be rebutted by the counsel for the State. In view of the above, I am satisfied that these review application deserve to be allowed as the above two cases namely RFA Nos.1419 and 1420 of 1993 are not covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Satish Kumar (supra ). 3. In view of the above, the present applications are allowed. Order dated 18.3.2009 is hereby recalled. The aforesaid appeals No.1419 and 1420 of 1993 are hereby ordered to be listed for hearing on merits.