STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

(2.) BY this judgment, I propose to dispose of Regular first Appeal No. 450 of 1982 and Cross Objection No. 54-CI of 1991, as they arise from the same judgment.

(3.) AT the very outset, we may notice that the learned counsel appearing for the parties have fairly conceded that the mutation placed on record by the respective parties could lawfully be ignored by the learned reference court. The claimants-objector submits that the judgment of the reference court is erroneous inasmuch as it has ignored and rejected exhibit P.13 judgment of the court, wherein for the land acquired in the year 1967 in relation to the adjacent village compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. Thus, on this basis, it was contended that the learned reference court has ignored the relevant piece of evidence and as such has fallen in error in recording the finding to the contrary.