GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this judgment, above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same award dated 20.7.2000 passed by the Reference Court. Land measuring 6 kanals 5 marlas belonging to claimant Gurdeep Singh, was sought to be acquired for construction of Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited Colony, Shehzadpur. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), was issued on 22.11.1995. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 5.11.1996. While passing the award, the Collector concluded that the possession of the land sought to be acquired, had been taken in the year 1969. Earlier notifications were issued for acquisition of the land but they expired due to lapse of time. The Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 98,634/ - per acre along with other statutory benefits vide award dated 30.10.1998. Claimant Gurdeep Singh, being dissatisfied by the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide its award dated 20.7.2000, assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3200/ - per marla and awarded Rs. 2,50,000/ - to the claimant as compensation qua the standing trees on the acquired land along with other statutory benefits. Hence, the present appeals by the claimant, State as well as Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Limited ('Corporation' for short).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for appellant Gurdeep Singh has submitted that the compensation qua the acquired land was liable to be enhanced in view of sale deed Ex. P -11.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel as well as counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, have submitted that the compensation had been correctly assessed by the Collector. In fact, the claimant was entitled to receive interest as per the old Act upto 30.4.1982 from 1.4.1969 and as per the new Act with effect from 1.5.1982 to 30.10.1998. The compensation amount was liable to be assessed as per the sale deeds placed on record by the State. In the present case, the parties had relied upon the following sale deeds for assessment of the market value of the acquired land: - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_556_LAWS(P&H)4_2015.htm</FRM>