LACHHMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land measuring 61.15 acres situated in village Barwa and Kainthal Khurd was acquired by the State of Haryana by issuing notification dated July 6, 1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal. The Collector by his award dated November 24, 1976, determined market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 8720/- per acre. The claimants of village Kainthal Khurd moved a petition under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Judge for determination of market value of the acquired land. The Additional District Judge on consideration of the matter, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 27,300/- per acre. On further appeal, this Court by its judgment dated July 23, 1986 determined the market value of the acpuired land at the rate of Rs. 31,000/per acre.

(2.) The claimants of village Barwa did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. After the decision by this Court determining market value at the rate of Rs. 31,000/- per acre, they moved an application under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of market value in terms of the award of this Court for payment of compensation to them in terms thereof There were nine such claimants. The Land Acquisition Collector declined the prayer of the landowners only on the ground that the award made by the Collector in the case of landowners of village Barwa was different than the award of the landowners of village Kainthal Khurd although notification under Section 4 of the Act was same and the rate determined was also the same. Some of the claimants aggrieved by the order of the Collector approached this Court by way of Civil Revision No 2271 of 1988 Anant Ram v. State of Haryana, (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 647. and this Court in its decision in 1989 (2) PLR 647 in the aforesaid case, allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Collector and remitted the matter back to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 28-A of the Act.

(3.) The facts of the present case are precisely the same as that of the reported case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent could not point out any distinguishing feature in the matter. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is allowed in the same terms as in Anant Ram's case (supra) decided on August 17, 1989. The case is consequently remitted back to the Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Collector, Ambala City an December 10, 1992 at 10.00 A. M. The parties shall bear their own costs.