Sher Singh & Anr. v. The State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms.Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the appellants. Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG Haryana for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. As identical questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals, therefore, by this common judgment, I shall be disposing of two Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.72 and 1324 of 1992 filed by the land owners/claimants challenging the award of Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 3.9.1991. Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') dated 26.7.1984 published in the Government Gazette on 31.7.1984 followed by a notification of declaration issued on 15.7.1985 and published in the Govt. Gazette on 30.7.1985, 0.36 acres of land situated in village Bhainsa Tibba, H.B.No.377, Tehsil Kalka District Ambala was acquired, at public expenses, for public purpose, namely, for the construction of L/R Mani Majra Mansa Devi road to Bhainsa Tibba. The acquired land was divided into two categories, namely, RFA No.72 of 1992 -2 - Abi 0 kanal 4 marlas and Gair Mumkin Makan 1 kanal 2 marlas, total measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas. The District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition collector, Ambala (for short `the Collector') vide his Award No.113 dated 31.10.1985 awarded compensation for Abi land measuring 0K-4M to the tune of Rs.600/- per acre and for Gair Mumkin Makan 1K-2M to the tune of Rs.3300/- per acre besides awarding other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act. Dissatisfied with the award, the aggrieved land owners filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act and asserted that value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.15/16 lacs per acre. The Objections were contested by the State of Haryana by inter alia alleging that the award given by the Collector is just, fair and reasonable. The land owners/claimants did not lead any oral evidence. They tendered copy of sale deed Ex.P1, copy of judgment Ex.P2 and copy of site plan Mark `A'. On the other hand, respondent had examined Kali Ram, Office Kanungo as RW1 besides tendering copy of sale deed Ex.R1. After taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Reference Court found that insofar as the sale deed Ex.P1 is concerned that pertains to 7 marlas of land situated within the abadi of village Bhainsa Tibba having been sold for Rs.21,000/-on 5.4.1983. It was observed by the learned Reference Court that distance and location of the land covered by sale deed Ex.P1 has not been proved rather a perusal of the sale deed Ex.P1 shows that it is a house on some portion of the land which is in the village Abadi. Thus, the said sale deed was taken out of consideration. The learned Reference Court thereafter, referred to certified copy of judgment Ex.P2 passed by Sh.M.S.Nagra, the then Additional Districct Judge, Ambala in respect of the land situated in village Bhainsa Tibba whereby compensation RFA No.72 of 1992 -3 - @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre was given in respect of the land acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.8.1981. Further reliance was placed upon decision of this Court in RFA No.1782 of 1986 (Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana) decided on 26.4.1988 wherein compensation in respect of land situated in village Bhainsa Tibba was assessed @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. However, learned Reference Court relied upon copy of award Ex.R2 tendered by the respondents-State whereby in respect of land of village Bhainsa Tibba acquired vide notification issued on

27.8.1981 of an area more than 400 acres, this Court in RFA No.572 of 1986 (Surinder Paul Vs. State of Haryana) awarded compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre wherein this Court did not place reliance upon decision rendered in RFA No.1782 of 1986 (Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana) vide which compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre was awarded in respect of land of village Bhainsa Tibba. Distinction drawn in the case of RFA No.572 of 1986 (Surinder Paul Vs. State of Haryana) was that the land was forming part of sub mountaineous area of village Bhainsa Tibba. It was also held that land forming part in RFA No.1782 of 1986 was of village Judian which could not have been equated with the land of village Bhainsa Tibba. Ms.Ekta Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that after the decision of the learned Reference Court dated 3.9.1991, this Court has again decided cases pertaining to the acquisition of village Bhainsa Tibba in RFA No.559 of 1988 (Teja Singh Vs. The State of Haryana) wherein Additional District Judge, Ambala had awarded compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre for an area measuring 494.24 acres of village Bhainsa Tibba and this Court vide order dated 5.10.1994 awarded compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. She has also referred to RFA No.72 of 1992 -4 - another decision of this Court in RFA No.357 of 1992 (Rajinder Singh and others Vs.The State of Haryana) which pertains to the acquisition dated

27.8.1981 whereby land situated in village Bhainsa Tibba was acquired for the purpose of development of residential or commercial area. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre. Learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide his award dated 22.8.1991 maintained the award of the Collector and granted compensation @ Rs.60,000/- per acre. This Court vide award dated 23.3.2005 passed in RFA No.357 of 1992 by relying upon earlier decision in RFA No.559 of 1988 (Teja Singh Vs. The State of Haryana) and also finding that acquired land is situated near motor market of Mani Majra, awarded compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre while holding that the Court is unable to place any reliance upon judgment rendered in RFA No.572 of 1986 (Surinder Paul Vs. State of Haryana) which is also relied upon in the present case by the respondent as Ex.R2. Keeping into consideration the consistent view of this Court coupled with the fact that acquisition in the present case is only for 0.36 acres of land which has been acquired for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of L/R Mani Majra Mansa Devi road to Bhainsa Tibba, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and as such, rely upon decision rendered in RFA No.357 of 1992 titled as Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and award compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and it is held that they shall now be entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,50,000/- per acre instead of Rs.60,000/- per acre as RFA No.72 of 1992 -5 - decided by the Reference Court along with statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act and costs of the appeals.

18.2.2009 Meenu (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge