RAM LABHAYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These ten R. F. As. Nos. 145 to 154 of 1983 by landowner claimants are directed against the same judgment of the land acquisition Court, Ambala, and are thus being disposed of together. The said Court too had consolidated the respective land references under S. 18 of the Act and recorded evidence at one place, i.e., in Land Acquisition Case No. 124/4 of 1982 (Ram Labhaya v. State of Haryana). Vide this judgment the Court has determined the market value of appellant's land acquired in pursuance of a notification published under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on June 22, 1973, for development and utilisation of the same as residential and commercial area (it now undisputably forms part of the Urban Estate, Panchkula), at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per acre. For this conclusion the Court has primarily depended on two awards of this Court, Exhibits P. 8 and P. 10, relating to the acquisition of land in villages Ferozepur Khurd and Devi Nagar the boundaries of which villages undisputably adjoin that of village Judian where the presently acquired land is located. The claim of some of the appellants under Clause Fourthly of subsection (1) of S. 23 of the Act on account of their loss of earnings as brick-kiln operators has, however, been declined. Now this judgment is assailed by the appellants on both the counts, i.e., (i) for not awarding fair and proper market value of the acquired land and (ii) for not adequately compensating the concerned appellants for their loss of earnings from the brick-kilns.

(2.) So far as the potentiality of the acquired land for being utilised as residential- cum-commercial area is concerned, the same is neither in dispute nor are the learned counsel for the parties at variance about the conclusion of the lower Court, in this regard.

(3.) For their claim at (i), the appellants' stand is that instead of following the awards Exhibits P. 8 and P. 9 relating to the acquisition of lands in villages Ferozepur Khurd and Devi Nagar, the lower Court should have preferred and gone by its two earlier awards Exhibits P. 12 and P. 13 whereby the market value of the lands acquired in village Dhillan and Judian itself had been determined by the said Court at Rs. 35,000/- per acre. To cut short the argument it may be stated here that award Exhibit P. l3 pertaining to the acquisition of land in village Judian where the suit land is located has already been set aside by me vide my judgment in R. F. A. No. 662 of 1982 (Dr. Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana) decided on March.l6, 1984. so far as the other award, i.e., Exhibit P. 12, is concerned, no doubt the same stands accepted and approved by me vide my order dt. March 2, 1984 in R. F. A. No. 808 of 1982 (State of Haryana v. Atma Singh), but I find that the appellants are not well justified in claiming compensation at that rate in preference to the award Exhibits P. 8 and P. 10. The lands covered by these latter awards were acquired in pursuance of a notification published under S. 4 of the Act on Jan. 30, 1973, that is, about five months earlier to the present notification under S. 4 of the Act. The boundaries of these villages, as already pouted out, adjoin that of village Judian. A bare reading of the judgment in R. F. A. 808 (supra) makes it mainfestly clear that it was on account of the very high degree of potentiality of land of village Dhillan--as compared to the suit land--that the market value of Rs. 35,000/- per acre as determined by the lower Court was approved. A look at the site plan Exhibit R. 1 makes it further clear that the land of village Dhillan is closer to Mani Majra Township which undisputably has come to form the hub of the whole development of the Urban Estate, Punchakula, than the suit land. In this site plan the acquired area has been shaded in blue. In the light of this factual position I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the lower Court in placing primary reliance on Exhibits P. 8 and P. 10 for determining the compensation payable to the appellants. Their learned counsel is not in a position to show that in the light of these awards the appellants can possibly claim any higher compensation.