SUSHMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine would dispose of R. F. A. Nos. 1605 to 1611, 1875 to 1886, 1943 to 1945, 1965, 2016, 2025, 2308 of 1991, 2298 and 3959 of 1992 as they arise out of a common award of the District Judge, Ambala, dated 18. 5. 1991. All these appeals have been filed by the landowners.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the State of Haryana by virtue of issuance of notification dated 6. 6. 1983 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') sought to acquire 200. 71 acres of land situated in village Maheshpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala for a public Purpose namely development and utilisation for industrial area. Under Section 6 of the Act, land measuring 194. 92 acres was acquired. However, on measurement the land was found to be 154. 44 acres only. The Land Acquisition Collector by his award dated 17. 9. 1986 has assessed the market value of the acquired-Chahi land @ 57,280/-, Barani @ Rs. 38,240/-, Banjar @ Rs. 19040/- and Gair Mumkin Rasta @ Rs. 9440/- per acre. The landowners feeling dissatisfied, sought references under Section 18 of the Act. The District Judge by his award under challenge before this Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate i. e. Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The land-owners feeling dissatisfied with the award of the District Judge have filed these appeals before this Court. During the pendency of the aforementioned appeals before this Court learned counsel for the landowners in R. F. A. No. 1944 of 1991, Guljar Singh v. State of Haryana. have filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of four awards given by the land Acquisition Courts evaluating the acquired land in villages Fatehpur, Rally and Judian. Since the application has been given in the case of Guljar Singh whereas the main judgment has been given in case of Sushma v. State, I would be giving the main award in the case of Suhshma v. State, only but as regards additional evidence, the same would, stand allowed in RFA No. 1944 of 1991, Guljar Singh v. State of Haryana. The additional evidence is being allowed by me on the short ground that it is subsequent event and law is well settled that any subsequent event be taken into consideration by a Court of law. The four awards are therefore, ordered to be exhibited as Exhibits C-1 to C-4. As to what evidentiary value these awards carry, the same would be seen in the latter part of the judgment.

(3.) STATEMENT of Angrej Singh claimant PW-7 is also similar to the statements of other claimants. Som Nath Patwari PW-8 has deposed that Urban Estate Panchkula was developed in the year 1971. The land of about fifteen villages including the land of village Maheshpur was notified for acquisition in the year 1971 for the first time. Later on, fresh notification was issued in the year 1973. Only part of revenue estate of village Maheshpur was acquired. Notification, according to this witness, was quashed in respect of the remaining part of revenue estate of Maheshpur and fresh notification was issued on 6. 6. 1983. He has further stated that land belonging to village Judian was also acquired for urban estate Panchkula. In cross-examination, the witness was constrained to admit that the land of village Judian was situated at a distance of four to five kilometres from the land in question of village Maheshpur. He has further stated in cross-examination that Dhillon Cinema was on the land of village Judian. The Said land of village Judian was close to Union Territory of Chandigarh. According to him the land of village Judian was better situated than the acquired land.