RAM CHAND WASON Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide which the appellants were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 45/- per square yard for the land acquired. The appellants were also held entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that in pursuance of the notification dated 16.12.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act the State of Haryana acquired 0.38 acres of land situated in Sonepat for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of the land as a residential and commercial area. The entire land as per the revenue record was classified as Gair Mumkin land. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued immediately thereafter. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Faridabad (Haryana) (for short 'the Collector') awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square yard. Statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act were also awarded.

(3.) THE claimants have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard. In order to claim the afore-mentioned amount, the claimants have relied upon various sale deeds as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Additional District Judge. Apart from the sale deeds relied upon by the landowner-claimants, they have also relied upon the award dated 13.3.1984 (copy at Ex. P-7), which shows that 44 Bighas and 4 Biswas of the land was acquired as per notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 19.4.1979 for a public purpose, namely, utilisation as residential, commercial and industrial area. The land which was subject-matter of Exhibit P-7, was also acquired at Sonepat. The Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per square yard. However, the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40/- per square yard. On the basis of Exhibit P-7 it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the land in the present case was acquired on 16.12.1983, i.e., after a period of 4 years and 8 months of the notification which was the subject-matter of Exhibit P-7, therefore, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit at the rate of 12 per cent per annum for the acquisition made in the present case. Counsel for the appellant has also argued that the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed before the Collector for referring the matter to the District Judge by Ram Chand and 13 others and the said Ram Chand was acting as the Special Power of Attorney in respect of 13 co-sharers, therefore, all the co-sharers are entitled to receive the compensation. However, the counsel contends that the Reference Court has not allowed the compensation to the 13 other co-sharers. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon A. Viswanatha Pillai and others v. The Special Tehsildar for Land Acquisition and others, 1992(1) R.R.R. 255 : 1991(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 596, in support of his contention.