MULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR First Appeal No. 2014 of 1993 titled as Multan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others was listed before this Court for final hearing. During the course of hearing it was noticed that the judgment in this case was totally based upon Ex. A-13 and the learned reference Court had awarded the same compensation that had been awarded by the other reference Court vide Ex. A.13 Ex. A.13 is the Award dated 19.10.1991 in the case of Net Ram Versus State of Haryana R.F.A. No. 2900 of 1992 and vice- versa. Resultantly, vide order dated 16.2.2000 of this Court the registry was directed to list these appeals together as the fate of Multan Singh's case was totally dependent upon the fate of Net Ram's case. This is how these 46 regular first appeals have been listed together.

(2.) THE Government of State of Haryana issued a notification on 12.8.1986, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, intending to acquire 47 acres 1 kanal 14 marlas of land in the revenue estate of village Baldi, District Karnal. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 6.8.1987. This land was acquired for strengthening the Regional Research Station, Uchani. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award No. 2/1989-90 dated 1.5.1989 awarded the following compensation to the claimants depending upon the nature of the land : Chahi/Nehri lands : Rs. 96,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin lands : Rs. 80,000/- per acre.

(3.) IT must be noticed at the very out-set that the documentary and oral evidence produced by the parties in both Net Ram's case as well as in Multan Singh's case is more or less similar. In Net Ram's case the claimants examined eight witnesses AW 1 to AW 8 and tendered on record Ex.A-7 to Ex.13, which are the copies of jamabandies. Aks-shijra and scheme of consolidation etc. They also produced on record Ex.A.3 to A.5 sale-deeds in relation to sale of the land in the same village. Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.5 were produced by the Registration Clerk AW 2 during the course of his statement in Court. Ex.A.12, Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 were the sale instances tendered by the claimants in evidence. Respondents only examined one witness i.e. RW 1 Jagdish Chand who submitted his report Ex.R.1 for fixing the price of the land and produced no other evidence whatsoever.