State of Haryana vs Om Parkash

Swatanter Kumar, J.

Vide judgment and award dated 24.11.1997 the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, answered 36 references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The State as well as the claimants felt dissatisfied from relief granted and they preferred regular first appeals before this court against the said judgment. The State preferred 35 appeals praying for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and restoration of the Collector''s award. On the other hand, the claimants preferred 34 appeals praying for further enhancement of the awarded amount.

Vide notification dated 10.12.1992 issued by the State of Haryana, the State intended to acquire 230.42 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Palwal for development and utilisation of the land as residential areas for Sectors 1 and 2, Palwal. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,35,000/ per acre. The claimants being dissatisfied from the conclusion of the compensation awarded by the Collector, preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/ per square yard, which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who vide the impugned judgment, enhanced the claim and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/ per square yard with statutory benefits. The learned Additional District Judge while enhancing the compensation entirely relied upon Ex.P.1, the judgment passed by the same Court in the case of Pohap Singh.

Ex. P.1 is the sole basis and foundation of the impugned judgment. Sale instances produced by both the parties have been rejected by the learned trial Court for valid reasons which have not even been questioned by the learned counsel for either side in the present appeal.

I must also notice that the learned counsel appearing from either side have not referred to any other evidence except to the basic contention that Ex.P.1 has been the subjectmatter of an appeal before this court in R.F.A. No. 473 of 1998, State of Haryana and Another v. Pohap Singh and R.F.A. No. 4769 and Another. In substance, all the arguments raised and the evidence relied upon in that case have been repeated by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned trial Court while pronouncing Ex.P.1 (Pohap Singh''s case) has considered different evidence including judicial pronouncements, letter of the State as well as sale instances. In view of the above, I would have no hesitation to follow the judgment of Pohap Singh in the present case as well.

Vide the judgment of the same date, R.F.A. No. 473 of 1998 titled State of Haryana and Another v. Pohap Singh and R.F.A. No. 4769 of 1998 titled Pohap Singh v. State of Haryana & Another, have been partly accepted by this court while granting to the claimants the following relief :

"As a result of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the lands located within 100 metres from the national highway (beyond the area which is adjacent to the State of national highway under the Scheduled Roads Boundary Act) and keeping in view its other location should be awarded higher compensation; while the other lands should be given lower compensation. Other lands acquired adjacent and part of Dalip Nagar would be entitled to get little lesser compensation while the remaining land acquired for railway track construction as well as in the interior towards the end of the revenue estate, would get the least compensation. As such the claimants would be entitled to get compensation in the following manner :

Lands located within 100 metres Rs. 206/ per sq. yard

from the national highway

(beyond the area which is adjacent to the State or national highway under the Scheduled Roads Boundary Act).

Lands near and part of Dalip Nagar Rs. 196/ per sq. yard

All other lands, Rs. 191/ per sq. yard

Consequently, the State appeals filed against the main judgment dated 6.2.1998 are hereby dismissed except R.F.A. No. 1632 of 1998 which is partly allowed without any order as to costs. However, the appeals filed by the claimants are partly accepted with proportionate costs. Now the claimants would be entitled to get compensation, as depicted in the above paragraph, along with all other statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act."

For the reasons aforestated, I am of the considered view that the claimants in the present 42 appeals shall be entitled to the same relief as has been granted to the claimants in Pohap Singh''s case. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the State are dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the appeals of the claimants are accepted partly with proportionate costs. The claimants would get the same relief as afore noticed.

Appeals partly accepted.