Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. M. L. Sharma and Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2131 to 2134 and 2449 to 2452 of 1994, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. In the appeals filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2131 of 1994. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

28.6.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 2.13 acres, situated in village Budhanpur, Hadbast No. 372, Tehsil Panchkula, District Ambala was acquired by the State of Haryana for M-2 road and green belt in village Budhanpur. The same was followed vide notification dated 29.6.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 26.6.1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 126/- per square yard and ` 44,973.81 for the super structures existing on the acquired land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 250/- per square yard and upheld the award of the Collector R.F.A. No. 2131 of 1994 [2] regarding super structures existing on the acquired land. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land is a small portion of 2.13 acres, which is located adjoining to Sector 16, Panchkula,1 acquired for the purpose of M-2 road and green belt in village Budhanpur. Land for Sector 16 and adjoining sectors was acquired way back in the year 1983 and the same had already been developed. Close to the acquisition, small portion of land was acquired vide notification dated 12.12.1983 for village Judian, where the amount of compensation was assessed @ ` 250/- per square yard in R.F.A. No. 55 of 1993 –State of Haryana v. Abhey Ram, decided on

29.10.2009. Further reference was made to award pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Kharak Mangoli Hadbast No. 388 and Majri vide notification dated

2.7.1985, where the amount of compensation was assessed @ ` 250/- per square yard in R.F.A. No. 41 of 1997—Parkash Rani v. State of Haryana, decided on

29.10.2009. The submission is that considering the fact that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 28.6.1989 and for the land acquired vide notification dated 12.12.1983 for village Judian, the value was assessed @ ` 250/- per square yard, the land owners should be awarded increase @ 12% per annum thereon. If the same is considered for a period of six years, the value of the land would come out to ` 450/- per square yard. Even if the later acquisitions are considered, still the land owners should be granted increase thereon for the time gap in the acquisition. He further submitted that the fact that it was the land in the abadi area cannot possibly be disputed for the reason that compensation has been paid for the structure existing on the acquired land. To show the location of the acquired land as well as the land pertaining to the earlier acquisitions, site plan has been produced on record with C.M. No. 687-CI of

2010. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the judgments pertaining to earlier acquisitions, which are sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the land owners, are not pertaining to the land which is comparative in its location. The acquired land even on the date of acquisition was part of village Budhanpur and the same was in illegal occupation, as some jhugis had been constructed thereon. There is no sale deed produced on record and the reliance is sought to be placed only on the earlier awards. He further submitted that pertaining to same acquisition, the award of the Collector assessing compensation @ ` 126/- per square yard was upheld by this Court in R.F.A. No. 349 of 1994— Santosh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 30.4.2009. Accordingly, even R.F.A. No. 2131 of 1994 [3] in the present set of appeals, the enhancement, as granted by the learned court below, be set aside and the award of the Collector be restored. In response to the contentions of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that upholding of award in the case of other land owners will not debar the land owners in the present set of appeals to claim higher compensation in case they are able to justify the same on the basis of evidence produced on record. He referred to the award of the learned court below in Santosh's case (supra) to submit that in that case, no one had appeared for the land owners and no evidence was led. It was in those circumstances that the award of the Collector was upheld. As far as the present cases are concerned, the land owners had produced the evidence on record. The sale deeds as such could not be produced for the reason that the entire land in the vicinity had been acquired. It was only some small left out portions of land, which had been acquired later. The developed plots were being sold at Haryana Urban Development Authority at exhorbitant rates. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the award of the learned court below assessing the compensation @ ` 250/- per square yard does not call for any interference. Even if the contention raised by learned counsel for the State that there are some positive points in the land pertaining to the earlier judgments, sought to be relied upon by the land owners in Abhey Ram's case (supra) and Parkash Rani's case (supra) vis-a-vis the acquired land, still the time gap in the acquisition will take care of that advantages as well. It is not disputed that the entire area in the vicinity had already been developed. The acquired land is located just on the one side of the developed sector. There was no possibility of producing other sale deeds pertaining to the land considering the fact that almost the entire land in the area had been acquired. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. September 20, 2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge