BASANT BHUSHAN TANEJA Vs. ADELPHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that land measuring 17 Kanals and 8 Marlas, situated in village Mawai was acquired by the State of Haryana for development of Sector 28, Faridabad vide notification dated 1.10.1973, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'). The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') gave award on 22.2.1974. Being dissatisfied, the appellants in RFA No. 1484 of 1985 filed petition under Sections 18 and 30 of the 1894 Act impleading M/s. Adelphi Finance Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No. 3 claiming that they were entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation. The learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 18/- per square yard. As there was dispute regarding ownership of the land, the learned court below held that as the appellants, namely, Basant Bhushan Taneja, Brij Mohan Taneja and Charanjit Taneja in RFA No. 1484 of 1985 were not owners of the property, they were not entitled to any compensation. The appellant, namely, M/s. Adelphi Finance Private Limited in RFA No. 185 of 1986 (respondent No. 1 in RFA No. 1484 of 1985) was held entitled to receive the entire amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants in RFA No. 1484 of 1985, while raising the issue regarding apportionment of compensation, submitted that the learned court below has totally gone wrong in opining that the entire amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land is payable to respondent No. 1. While recording such a finding, the learned court below has totally failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record by the appellants. He submitted that vide order dated 21.7.1966, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, the land in question was allotted to the appellants after cancellation of its earlier allotment in favour of the vendor of the respondent, namely, Rai Bahadur Parma Nand. Even mutation was entered in favour of the appellants in the revenue record. Respondent No. 1 challenged the aforesaid allotment of land in favour of the appellants by filing C.W.P. No. 707 of 1969 - The Adelphi Finance Private Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 9.2.1970 on a concession by the parties by recording that the representation already made by respondent No. 1 to the Additional Director, Consolidatin of Holdings, Rohtak against the allotment of land in favour of the appellants will be considered within three months. It was specifically recorded therein that this Court was not recording any finding on the merits of the controversy. He submitted that thereafter no order was passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, meaning thereby that allotment of land in favour of the appellants stood as such. In the light of the aforesaid order, the observations made by the learned court below that the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings in favour of the appellants regarding allotment of land in question stood vacated, is totally erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The appellants are entitled to payment of compensation on account of acquisition of land.