MAHANT SHERYO NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment disposes of LPA Nos. 573 and 575 of 1980 against the common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court and R.F.A. No. 224 of 1980 filed by the same appellant. It is the undisputed position that identical questions of law and fact arise in these cases and thus the same can conveniently be disposed of together. As a matter of fact the rate of compensation payable as determined in RFA No. 224 of 1980 has been accepted as the correct rate in the corresponding RFAs to which the above noted letters patent appeals relate. Though the acquisition in these cases has been effected through two different notifications (dated December 22, 1972) in the RFA and January 31, 1973 in the letters patent appeals), yet it is the conceded position that by itself does not make any difference to the question required to be settled in these cases i.e., determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned counsel are further agreed that for purposes of this judgment only the records in the letters patent appeals need be adverted to. For recording the above noted conclusion in the letters patent appeals the learned Single Judge has depended on an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1979 PunLJ 416, whereby market pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on November 11, 1969, was determined at the same very rate, i.e. Rs. 140/- per marla.

(2.) The sole submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that while determining the above noted rate of compensation the learned Single Judge erred in relying on the judgment in Balbir Singh's case as firstly, in that case the land had been acquired on the basis of a notification issued more than three years earlier to the present notification under Section 4 of the Act and secondly, the rate of compensation in that case was determined on a concession given by result of any judicial scrutiny of the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, in the instant cases not only there is enough evidence to entitle the appellant to claim compensation at much higher a rate but he is also supported in his claims by a precedent of this Court in Mange Ram v. The State of Haryana, RFA No. 798 of 1975, decided on Feb. 17, 1981, whereby market value of 33.82 acres of land acquired in the vicinity of the suit land in pursuance of a notification published on January 31, 1973, was determined at the rate of Rs. 8/- per square yard. The learned counsel maintains that there are no circumstances to differentiate the market value of the presently acquired land from the land acquired in Mange Ram's case as the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on the same date, i.e. January 31, 1973. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we find that the above noted submissions of the learned counsel are not devoid of merit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant appears to be wholly right in submitting that the acquisition in Balbir Singh's case was effected more than three years prior to the present acquisition and the rate of compensation was fixed on the basis of an agreement between the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have observed that the learned counsel for the appellants after inviting their attention to several instances disclosing a market rate varying from Rs. 11/- to Rs. 40/- per square yard, stated that "his clients would be content if they are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 140/- per marla". To this suggestion of the learned counsel, the learned Additional Advocate-General raised no objection and rather fairly conceded that "the claimants in all these three appeals may be allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 140/- per marla". It is thus evident from these observations that there was no dispute at all between the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the rate of compensation to be allowed in that case. We are further satisfied that there is almost an unending phenomenon of rise in the prices of the lands in the vicinity of the growing towns - as the town of Rohtak is - and the Court has to take judicial notice of the same. In the instant cases the claimant could not justifiably be awarded compensation at a rate prevalent more than three years prior to the date of acquisition. Thus the above noted conclusion of the learned Single Judge in these cases is essentially to be set aside.