MUNSHI Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, URBAN ESTATES, GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of a bunch of Regular First Appeal Nos. 1855 and 1858 of 1987, 128, 92 to 101, 127, 132 to 140,154 to 158,173 to 180,276,300,301,311,312, 412 to 419 512, 515, 516, 521) 556, 557, 612) 744, 745, 956 to 960 999, 1016, 1095, 1096,4099, 1105, 1106, 1149 to 1151, 1173, 1270, 1292, to 1294, 1335, 1663, 1766, 1785, 1871 to 1873, 1917, 1918 of 1988, 44 to 46 993 to 995 1121, 1275, 1276, 1443, 1445 1475, 1836, 1936, 1937, 2291 of 1989 and 253 779, 780, 801, 806, 903, 1047, 1376 of 1990, all filed by the claimants, as the question involved in all these cases is as to what should be the proper compensation for the land acquired in Village Carterpuri in pursuance of two Notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 13.11.1981 published in the official Gazette on 16.11.1981 acquiring land measuring 3490 kanals 7 marlas situated in the aforesaid Village for a public purpose i.e. for development and utilisation as residential-cum-commercial area of Sector 23-A, Gurgaon. The previous name of village Carterpuri was Daulatpur Nasirabad. The aforementioned two notifications gave rise to four awards by the Land Acquisition Collector, out of which three awards were given on 21.7.1986 whereas the other award was given on 2.5.1986. The landowners sought references under Section 18 of the Act, again culminating into four different awards given by Land Acquisition Courts at different times. This Court has thought it appropriate to refer to the award given by the District Judge in Regular First Appeal No. 779 of 1990 Munshi v. Land Acquisition Collector, 1992 1 RRR 185 as in the aforesaid case, the District Judge has given compensation at the rate of Rs. 52.50 per square yard. This Court is not inclined to refer to other awards as the various amounts of compensation determined in other awards are much less. The discrepancy in the amounts of compensation has arisen on account of the matters having been dealt with by the Land Acquisition Court whether they were presided by District Judge or by Additional District Judge at different times in view of the awards made available which were given by this Court The District Judge while evaluating the disputed land at Rs. 52.50 per square yard, has placed reliance on R.F.A. 818 of 1986 Gulzari v. State of Haryana decided on 24.11.1988 by A.L. Bhari, J. determining the market value of the acquired land of Village Dhundahera @ Rs. 52.20 per square yard. The learned District Judge while giving award in Munishi's case , has by and large found that the lands of Village Carterpuri i.e. the disputed land and the lands of Village Dhundahera and Mulahera are adjacent to each other and they having been acquired by the same Notification, deserve to be evaluated at the same rate. Even before this Court, the learned counsel for the claimants were at pains to explain that the disputed land in Village Caterpuri was similarly situated i.e. along Delhi border as was the case with the lands of Dhundahera and Mulahera. The site plan was shown to me from the records of Regular First Appeal No. 800 of 1990 Om Parkash v. State of Haryana. It is noticed at this stage that the aforementioned appeal is not on the cause list of this Court but this Court has thought it appropriate to make a reference to the aforementioned appeal as the entire evidence was recorded in the aforementioned case.

(2.) In a nut-shell, according to the findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Courts in all the awards and according to the evidence produced on the record of the case and according to the arguments addressed at the Bar by the counsel for the claimants, the lands of all the three villages i.e. Carterpuri, Dhundahera and Mulahera are contiguous to each other and have got same potentialities, they being situated along Delhi border. It is with reference to this factual position that this Court is to determine as to what should be the market value of the acquired land on the date of two notifications.

(3.) Mr. M.S. Jain, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the claimants (assisted by Mr. R.A. Yadav, Mr. S.D.Bansal, Mr, C.B. Goel, Mr. R.K Jain, and Mr. Ashok Sharma) has argued that this Court while following the ration laid down in Gulzari's case by A.L. Bahri, J. and while following the market value of the land of village Caterpuri as determined by G.C. Metal, J. in Maha Singh v. State of Haryana (F.A.O. No. 185 of 1980) decided on 15.12.1980 should grant compensation at the rate of Rs. 69.50 per square yard. The precise argument of the counsel is that G.C. Mital, J. in Maha Singh's case evaluated the land of village Caterpuri at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square yard pertaining to the notification dated 11.6.1971 and, therefore, while giving the premium for price rise during a period of 1-1/2 years at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square yard, as has been ruled by A.L. Bahri, J, in Gulzari's case , this Court should evaluate the land acquired in village Carterpuri at the rate of Rs. 69.50 per square yard.