State of Haryana vs Jyoti Parkash and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—These regular first appeals are directed against the award and judgment dated 11.1.1997 passed by Shri M.S. Nagra, District Judge, Gurgaon.

In order to appreciate the controversy in the present appeals, reference to the basic facts would be necessary. Vide Notification dated 17.4.1989, the Government of Haryana published a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) intending to acquire 40.85 acres land situated in villages Sukhrali, Silokhra and Sirhaul, District Gurgaon. This land was acquired for public purposes, namely, for development and utilisation of land for industrial/commercial area (Sector 29 part) at Gurgaon. This notification was followed vide Notification dated 16.4.1990 u/s 6 of the Act. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre for the acquisition of the land of all these three villages.

The claimants being dissatisfied, preferred references u/s 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge, Gurgaon, vide two different judgments, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,88,850/- per acre irrespective of the nature of the land to the claimants. This amount of compensation was awarded with statutory benefits and interest payable thereupon.

Still dis-satisfied with the award given by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, the State as well as the claimants have preferred the aforestated appeals being RFA No. 1071 of 1997 and 3383 of 1998, respectively.

As common question of law and facts arise in these two appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of the same by a common judgment.

The sale instances produced by either party were inadmissible in evidence as per the law enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. The main reliance was placed upon Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 by the claimants, judgments of the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre was awarded by the court in respect of the land of villages Silokhra and Sukhrali, which was acquired vide notification dated 27.8.1987 u/s 4 of the Act. While placing reliance upon these two judgments, the learned trial court considering the fact that acquisition in the present cases was subsequent to that notification, granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,88,850/- per acre with statutory benefits to the claimants. Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were subject matter of appeal before this court and were disposed of by a detailed judgment in the case titled as State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ram Chander and Others, : RFA Nos. 37 of 1996 and 1921 of 1995, respectively pronounced on 13.5.1999. The compensation of Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre awarded by the learned District Judge was reduced by this court to Rs. 6,53,400/- per acre with all statutory benefits.

I am prepared to accept the contention raised on behalf of the claimants that In any case the claimants have to be awarded higher compensation that awarded by the court in the case of Ram Chander (supra). Admittedly notification In the case of Ram Chander (supra) was dated 27.8.1987, while in the present case, the date of notification is 17.4.1989. Obviously there is a gap of more than one year and seven months. The location and potential of the land is more or less similar because the land, subject matter of Ram Chander (supra), was from village Silokhra and Sukhrali. Village Sirhaul is adjoining with the revenue estates of village Silokhra and Sukhrali. Thus, it would be fair to award them uniform compensation for acquisition of the entire land belonging to the revenue estates of these all three villages, as their location and potential is the same. The location and potential of the acquired land have already been discussed in detail on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case of Ram Chander (supra). Thus, this court has to take notice of the said judgment.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants have heavily relied upon that judgment and has fairly conceded that the judgment has bearing on all issues of controversy in the present case.

On the application of the above enunciated principle, I am of the considered view that where the claimants would be entitled to some element of increase on the basic value, there they would also incur the liability resulting from the application of principle of deduction. The market value of the land payable to the claimants can then alone be computed in a fair and just manner. For the reasons aforestated, ends of justice would be met, if the claimants are paid a sum of Rs. 7,53,000/-.

Resultantly, the appeal preferred by the claimants is dismissed without any order as to costs, while the appeal preferred by the State Is partly accepted. The claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,53,000/- per acre with statutory benefits available to them u/s 23(1-A), and 28 of the Act. However, there shall be no order as to costs.