TEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 546 to 549, 504, 625, 626, 659, 660, 1454, 1552, 1553, 1648, 1649, 1905, 1936 and 1937, all of the year 1989 and 418 and 1190 both of the year 1990.

(2.) Vide Notification No. LAC -81/NTLA/2515 dated July 6, 1981, issued Under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, an area measuring 223.87 Acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Sarhaul, district Gurgaon, was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for the purpose of development and utilisation of land for industrial purposes under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. This notification was followed by an other Notification Under Sec. 6 of the Act dated June 25, 1982 whereby 177.80 acres of land was acquired Later on , the rest of the area measuring 165.04 Acres was also acquired and award regarding compensation was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana, Faridabad. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants moved application Under Sec. 18 of the Act for making reference to the concerned District Judge for enhancement of compensation. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 23.50 ps. per Sq. Yd. Still dissatisfied, the appellants filed Regular Fist Appeals for enhancement of compensation, which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge. However, the said appeals were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on September 19, 1988. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed the present Letters Patent Appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gulzari Lal and Ors. v/s. State of Haryana,, R.F.A. No. 818 of 1986 judgment delivered on November 24, 1988, allowed compensation @ Rs. 52.50 P. per square yard taking into consideration the appreciation @ Rs. 5/ - per annum per square yard. He submits that the land involved in the said judgment pertains to the same Notification as in the present case. So he contended that there should not be any reason for adopting a different norm in the matter of assessment of compensation in respect of the land involved in the present appeals. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Judge in Gulzari Lal's case (supra). It appears that the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6089 of 1983 which was decided on August 1, 1983. The Supreme Court awarded compensation after taking into consideration appreciation in market value @ Rs. 5/ - per annum per square yard. It is, of course, true that in Gulzari Lal's case (supra) the assessment of compensation was done in respect of land in village Dundahera. In the present case, the land is situated in village Sar -haul, District Gurgaon. It is admitted that the villages Dundahera, Sarhaul and Shahpur are adjacent villages and they stand alongside Delhi -Gurgaon -Alwar National Highway. They are situated on the border of Delhi and have a great potential value for being utilised for industrial purposes. In fact, the said lands were acquired by single Notification for the purposes of development and utilisation of land for industrial purposes under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.