MALIK SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') was issued on 20.3.1978. This was followed by another notification under Section 6 of the Act. By these notifications a piece of land measuring 6.15 acres was acquired for the development and utilization of the same as sewer storm water and disposal works in the area of village Sonepat. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 10.5.1979. In his award he categorised the land as 'A' and 'B'. For category 'A' land he allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 220/- per Biswa. For 'B' category land the price was fixed at Rs. 160/- per Biswa.

(2.) The land-owners were not satisfied with the assessment of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Collector and references were sought under Section 13 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, disposed of these references by a judgment dated 29.11.1982. He came to the conclusion that the entire land should be assessed as one single unit and he fixed the pride of the land at Rs. 12/-per sq. yard.

(3.) The matter was taken up further in appeal in this Court. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there, was room for making enhancement. The learned Judge formed this- view on the basis of the judgment given by this Court in an earlier case Smt. Ganesh Devi v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 070 of 1982 decided on 93.1984. On the basis of this judgment the learned Single Judge, came to the conclusion that the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard should be given for the land falling within a depth of 400 feet from Sonepat-Bahalgarh road and for the rest of the land the compensation should be at the rate of Rs. 15/-per Sq. yard. Thus, the teamed Single Judge again bifurcated the land into two blocks. An argument was advanced before the learned Single Judge that as in the case of Ganeshi Devi's the acquisition was of the year 1976, there was room for further enhancement in the market value of the land because the time gap between the acquisition in dispute and the acquisition in the case of Ganeshi Devi was about two years. This contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge as he found that the potential value of the land in dispute was not comparable to the potential of the land in the case of Ganeshi Devi.