STATE OF HARYANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 4.4.1995. Vide impugned judgment the learned court had answered the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in favour of the claimants and had enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants @ Rs.27,000/- per bigha with statutory benefits and interest. The appropriate government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 3.6.1987 in furtherance to which declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and the land measuring about 140 bighas 4 biswas in the Revenue Estate of the Village Kolambi Khurd was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector made and published his award and granted compensation to the claimants @ Rs.8620.00 per bigha besides other benefits. As already noticed, upon references under Section 18 of the Act, the compensation payable to the claimants was enhanced. The State of Haryana for whose benefit the land was acquired, aggrieved from the judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 4/4/1995 has preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the compensation awarded to the claimants is not based upon any evidence and the reference court has fallen in error of law in awarding such compensation and therefore the award of the reference court is liable to be set aside and that of the Collector needs to be restored. The award was made on the basis of Ex.C1, the judgment of that court in LAC No. 296/1990 titled as Rajpal vs. Union of India, decided on 4/4/1995 regarding the same very award. Number of other cases were decided by the Reference Court in relation to the same award, same land and the land situated in the revenue estate of the same village.

(2.) THE reference decided in RFA No. 1020/1995 titled as Lok Chand vs. Union of India on 7/4/2005 was assailed by the claimants before this court and a Division Bench of this Court upheld the order of the Reference Court and denied any further enhancement to the claimants. THE judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Lok Chand's case fully applies to the present case on facts and law. THE learned Counsel appearing for the parties could not dispute that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and thus, calls for no further interference. THE compensation @ 27,000.00 per bigha was found to be appropriate. We have no reason to differ with the judgment of the Division Bench in Lok Chand's case (supra). Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.