NEELAM BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Government of Haryana issued two notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). First notification being No. LAC (P)-NITA-90-2223 dated 12.4.1990 was issued for acquiring 39.29 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal and village Budha Khera for development and utilisation of and as residential and commercial area of Sector 9 and part thereof, while other notification being No. LAC (P)-90-2224 dated 12.4.1990 was issued for acquiring 52.56 acres of land situated in the same revenue estate for development and utilisation of the said land as residential and commercial area of Sector 8 and part thereof. In furtherance thereto, two different notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 9.4.1991.

(2.) THE land was taken into possession by the State of Haryana and the Collector, vide his award dated 6.4.1993 after adopting prescribed procedure, awarded compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their respective land at the uniform rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre.

(3.) IT must be noticed at this stage that the learned Collector had awarded identical rate of compensation to all the claimants, whose land had been acquired for the aforestated purposes. The learned Additional District Judge, though pronounced two different judgments on the same date i.e. 9.11.1998, yet awarded the same rate of compensation to all the claimants. Aggrieved from the judgments and awards of the learned Additional District Judge, the claimants have preferred 40 appeals in all, while no appeal of the State has been listed before this Court as yet. In RFA No. 882 of 1999 (Neelam Bala's case), the appeal of the claimants arises from the judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 9.11.1998 passed in relation to the acquisition of the land for development of Sector 9, Karnal, while RFA No. 895 of 1999 (Panni Devi's case) relates to the judgment of the same date of learned Additional District Judge which has been passed in relation to acquisition of land for development of Sector 8, Karnal. Both these appeals were taken as lead cases by the learned Additional District Judge, where the evidence were recorded and as such it is appropriate for this Court to deal with those appeals as the main cases covering the other connected appeals. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the parties have led more or less similar documentary and oral evidence in both aforestated references. Except Ex. P-4, copy of judgment, in the case of Panni Devi, all other documentary evidence appears to be the same and in any case nothing to the contrary was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State.