S.C. DHANDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Additional District Judge disposed of several land acquisition references relating to the land acquired vide notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') dated November 22, 1984. One set of reference was disposed of vide judgment dated May 19 1989 and the other sets on different dates. However copy of the judgment of May 19,1989 was produced in evidence in the subsequent set of cases. In these sets of cases the Additional District Judge fixed market value of the land acquired category-wise as under:

(2.) 234.90 acres of land in two adjoining villages Gowal Pahari and Balola, tehsil and district Gurgaon, was intended to be acquired. Subsequently 233.90 acres of land was in fact acquired. The landowners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition, Collector that they moved references under section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement of market value. After contest, the Additional District Judge fixed the market value as aforesaid and also allowed benefit under the Land Acquisition Act as amended in 1984.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the acquired land had great potential for being used for building for residential and commercial purposes keeping in view the development in the area around Delhi. The acquired land according to the counsel for the appellants is situated just outside the periphery area of Delhi. DLF residential colony had already come up to a distance of 3-4 kms from the acquired land. It is in this context that it has further been argued that fixation of market value category-wise keeping in view the kind of the !and acquired was not justified. Compensation for the entire land should be fixed at the flat rate. The principle which is pressed into service is that whatever evidence regarding the value of the land in the vicinity is available, the same should be doubled and thereafter applying a cut of 1/3rd for development charges the remaining amount should be treated as market value and assessment of compensation should be determined accordingly. On the otherhand, learned Advocate - General for the State has argued that in the present case there is no evidence of any kind of any development in the village or around the acquired land. The DLF enclave being at a distance of 3-4 kms from the acquired land and 1 K.M. from the boundary of the village Gowal Pahari will be of no importance to treat the acquired land to have a potential for being used for commercial and residential purposes. The Additional District Judge, according to the learned counsel, rightly fixed market value of the land acquired taking into consideration the relevant sale transactions of the year 1981 and thereafter allowing 12% per annum increase to fix just market value of the land on the date of issuing of the notification under section 4 of the Act which was in 1984.