PARSINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing of RFAs 1199, 1200 and 1201 of 1982, the entire controversy had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, there were some divergence of opinion between the counsel for the parties as to whether the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Sections 28 and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with regard to the grant of 30% solatium and 15% interest from the date of the award given by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. However, even this controversy has now been settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) through LRs., 1989(2) SCC 754 : 1989(1) RRR 552 (SC).

(2.) THE relevant facts are that large tracts of land were acquired by the State of Haryana for setting up residential, commercial and industrial area subsequently named as Panchkula in district Ambala (now district Panchkula). For this purpose, the land was acquired in a number of villages which are mentioned in the awards given by the Land Acquisition Collector as also by the Additional District Judge. For the aforesaid purposes, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 22.6.1973. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8.6.1976. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on 11.6.1978. Against this award, references were filed under Section 18 of the Act before the Additionally District Judge, Ambala. The compensation was enhanced. The judgment was rendered by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, on 10.4.1982.