PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment disposes of nine Regular First Appeals Nos. 488 to 492 and 977 to 980 of 1984 preferred by the land owner claimants as these pertain to the same acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government with the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (or short, the Act) on 4th November, 1977. The Land of the claimants is located in the revenue estate of Atmadpur and has been acquired to develop it into a residential area, i.e., Sector 30 of Faridabad Township. The Land Acquisition Collector treating it to be a purely agricultural land for determining its market value, awarded compensation at rates varying from Rs. 20,000/ - to Rs. 30,000/ - per acre. As the claimants did not feel satisfied with the adequacy of this compensation, they sought respective references under Section 18 of the Act and as a result thereof the land acquisition Court (District Judge, Faridabad) has allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/ - per square yard besides the statutory solatium and interest at 15% and 6% respectively. The claimants are still not satisfied with the award of the lower Court and have preferred these appeals.

(2.) FOR recording its above noted conclusion the lower Court has primarily relied upon various awards, such as, Exhibits P -11, P -13, P -15, P -17, P -19. P -21, P -22,P -24 and P -26, pronounced by it earlier for the acquisition of land in the adjoining village Mawai. for the same purpose, i.e., development of Sector 29 of this Township. The revenue estate of Atmadpur admittedly adjoins the lends of village Mawai. Vide all these awards which pertain to the acquisition effected in pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Act on 1st October, 1973, the market value of that land was determined at Rs. 18/ - per square yard Following those awards the Court has awarded similar compensation in these cases. The learned Counsel for the Appellants is not in a position to find any fault with this approach of the lower court He however, contends that the Court committed an error in not noticing the general upward trend in the prices of lands nearabout or around the developing towns and has wrongly disallowed the claim of the Appellants for a higher rates of compensation on account of the time lag of about four years between the two acquisitions dated 1st October, 1973 and the present notification dated 4th November, 1977. This claim of the Appellants has been turned down by the lower Court with the observation that the Petitioners before him had "failed to show whether there was any rise in price after 1973 and if so to what extent" I find merit in the above noted submission of the learned Counsel By now it is well recognised that rise in prices of lands near about the developing towns is almost a continuous and unending phenomenon and the Courts while determining the market value of the acquired lands have been taking judicial notice of it. There are number of judgments of this Court pertaining to the acquisition of land for Faridabad town itself wherein in similar situation raise in the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Re. 1/ - per square yard per year has been allowed. A reference in this regard can be made to an earlier judgment of mine in R. F. A. No. 586 of 1981 (Raghbir Singh and Ors. v. The State of Haryana R F A. No 586 of 1981) decided on 30th November, 1984, vide which judgment the market value of the land acquired for the development of sector 8 of this vary complex was determined. In the light of that I am satisfied that the market value of the Appellants' land has to be determined at Rs. 22/ - per square yard, i.e. on account of the lapse of four years between the two acquisitions, i.e., the one to which the above noted awards relate and the present acquisition effected in pursuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act published on 4th November, 1977 The learned Counsel for the Respondent authorities has nothing contrary to submit.

(3.) WITH regard to the other claim in the light of Sub -section (l -A)of Section 23, learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently contends that in view of Sub -section (1) of 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, i.e., Act No. 68 of 1984, the additional amount at the rate of 12% of the market value of the acquired land can only be allowed in cases where no award has been made by the Land Acquisition Collector prior to the 30th April, 1982, i.e. the date when the Amendment Bill was introduced in the House of the People In order to appreciate the stand of the learned Counsel, a detailed reference to Section 30(1) of this Act is necessary and the same is reproduced as under: -