STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 2084 of 1984 and Cross Objection No. 39-CI of 1985 as they arise out of the common award of the Land Acquisition Court.

(2.) Haryana Government vide notification dated 23.4.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') sought to acquire 21 kanals 3 marlas of land situated in Patti Mehar (Ambala) for the construction of General Hospital at Ambala City. Ultimately, the land measuring 7 kanals 16 marlas was found to have been acquired on a previous occasion and, therefore, the aforementioned land was excluded from acquisition. The resultant effect was that 13 kanals 7 marlas of land stood acquired which belongs to the respondent cross-objectors. The land acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20/- per square yard vide his award dated June 22, 1981. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge vide his impugned award has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 100/- per square yard. The land Acquisition Court while fixing the aforementioned valuation has relied upon award given by his Court in Pala Singh v. State of Haryana, RFA No. 985 of 1981, decided on May 18, 1982. In the aforesaid case, a single Bench of this Court fixed the compensation for the land acquired in the revenue estate of Patti Mehar vide notification dated May 30, 1978. The purpose of acquisition in the previous case was that the land was needed for construction of road and an over-bridge on the railway lines passing through the town of Ambala City. The learned Additional District Judge after discarding the other documentary evidence in the shape of sale transactions effected by the Improvement Trust on the ground that these plots were fully developed, has ultimately relied upon the award given by this Court in Pala Singh's case .

(3.) The counsel for the landowners has submitted that the Additional District Judge should have relied upon the sales made by the Improvement Trust in favour of Vijay Cinema etc. However, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge inasmuch as the Improvement Trust sold the plots after developing them. Faced with this situation, Mr. Hoshiarpuri has argued that this court should give the allowance for price increase which had taken place within two years time when the notification in the previous case was issued and when the land was acquired in the present case. The Additional District Judge while rejecting the claim of the land-owners on account of time gap has observed that the land in dispute in the present case was situated near the Sessions House whereas the land in Pala Singh's case was situated near the Bus Stand.