PURAN 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 landowners claimants as these pertain to the same acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government with the publication of a notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on Nov.4, 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 the rates varying from Rs.20000/- to Rs.30000/-per acre. As the claimants did not feel satisfied with the adequacy of this compensation, they sought respective references under S. 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 Section (Sector) 29 of the Township. The revenue estate of Atmadpur admittedly adjoins the lands of village Mawai. Vide all these awards which pertain to the acquisition effected in pursuance of a notification published under S. 4 of the Act on Oct. 1, 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 rate of compensation on account of the time lag of about four years between the two acquisitions dated Oct 1, 1973 and the present notification dated Nov. 4, 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 nearabout 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 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 rise 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 others v. The State of Haryana and others) decided on November 30, 1984, vide which judgment the market value of the land acquired for the development of Section (Sector) 8 of this very complex was determined. In the light of that I am satisfied that the market value of the appellants' land had 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 S. 4 of the Act published on Nov. 4, 1977. The learned counsel for the respondent authorities has nothing contrary to submit.

(3.) The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants which of course has been seriously debated by the two sides is that the claimants besides being entitled to solatium and interest at the rate of 30% and 15% respectively in the light of the amended provisions of Ss.23(2) and 28 of the Act, are also entitled to an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the above noted market value in view of the newly added provisions of sub-sec.(1-A) to S.23 of the Act, vide Act. No. 68 of 1984. This latter-mentioned sub-section reads as follows :-