CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of appeals since all the appeals arise out of same acquisition proceedings wherein the land in question had been acquired through notification dated September 12/19,1983 and another notification dated March 29,1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') in village Bohali, Tehsil Panipat and District Karnal.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that an appeal being RFA No.2612 of 1991 (Balkar Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others) has been decided by this Court vide judgment dated November 14,2003. A copy of the aforesaid judgment has been placed on record as Annexure A.1 through Civil Misc. Application No.4828-CI of 2005 in RFA No.1932 of 1988. I have gone through the judgment dated November 14,2003 and find that the aforesaid judgment pertains to the assessment of the acquired land through the aforesaid notifications dated September 12/19,1983 and March 29,1985.

(3.) However, some of the learned counsel for the claimants have claimed that they were entitled to further enhancement than awarded in Balkar Singh's case (supra). It has been argued that in fact 1/3rd cut which had been applied by the learned Judge while disposing of Balkar Singh's case (supra) was erroneous and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to the assessment on the basis of sale instances. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the claimants that the classification of the land in categories of Nehri,Chahi, Barani and Banjar was also erroneous. It has further been argued by some of the learned counsel that the learned Judge has given the same compensation for the land acquired through notification dated March 29,1985, which had been given for the land acquired through notification dated September 12/19,1983. It has been argued by the learned counsel that for the acquisition of the year 1985, the claimants were entitled to further enhancement.