RAM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE NOW HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment the following two regular first appeals which are directed against two separate awards dated August 29, 1966, of the Additional District Judge, Ambala will be disposed of, as common questions of law and fact are involved in these appeals: - (1) R. F. A. No. 535 of l966 -- Ram Singh and others v. Punjab State. 2. R. F. A. No. 548 of 1966 -- Chhotu and others v. Punjab State.

(2.) In pursuance of the Punjab Government Notification No. 1448-Ft-IV-63/744, dated March 12, 1963. under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and declaration issued vide Notification No 1782-FI-IV/63/898. dated March 18, 1963, under Section 6 of that Act, the Government acquired 108 acres of land in V. Khudalisher and 2099 acres of land in village Kansal. Tehsil Kharar, District Ambala. at a public expense and for a public purpose, namely, for the execution of soil conservation and other important works in the Catchment Area of Sukhna Lake, Chandigarh and for raising a green belt around the Capital. Land measuring 513 Bighas 11 Biswas belonging to Ram Singh, Hari Singh and Bhajan Singh appellants of Appeal No. 535 of 1966, situated in village Kansal was acquired by these notifications. Land measuring 308 Bighas and 13 Biswas belonging to Chhotu and others appellants of appeal No. 548 of 1966 situated in village Kansal was acquired by the same notifications for the same purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/per acre for this land. Feeling aggrieved, Ram Singh, Hari Singh and Bhajan Singh appellants filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acqui-silion Act fo the Collector for making a inference to the District Judge alleging that the compensation awarded to them v as very meagre, that the price of Banjar Qadim land should have been assessed at Rs. 500/- per Bigha and Rs. 150/per Bigha for Ghair Mumkin land. It was also urged that the Collector did not award them any compensation for the trees standing in the land, which belonged to them. They maintained that they used to derive considerable income by selling Eabar grass growing on this land, but no compensation was also allowed to them for that. The Collector made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge for deciding the objections of Ram Singh and others appellants. The Punjab State contested the objections of the appellants. It was pleaded that the trees standing on the land belonged to the Forest Department as that area was under the management of that Department. All the allegations made in the petition of the appellants were controverted. This reference was entrusted for decision to the Additional District Judge, Ambala, by the District Judge. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Additional District Judge: -

(3.) Chhotu and others, appellants of Appeal No, 548 of 1966 also filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector. Practically on the same allegations and a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Collector to the District Judge for deciding those objections. In that case also the Punjab State contested the allegations made in the petition, and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Additional District Judge: -