SARUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these seventeen Regular First Appeals Nos. 124 to 127, 129 to 137 and 174 to 177 of 1985, filed by the landowners-claimants, the solitary question that needs to be determined, relates to the market value of their acquired land. Undisputedly this land has been acquired in pursuance of the notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on November 10, 1976, for the development of the same as Sector 3 of Faridabad Township.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find it wholly unnecessary to go into the detailed merits of these appeals as by now there are innumerable judgments of this Court dealing with the acquisition notice that vide R.F.As Nos. 585 and 586 of 1981 decided on November 30, 1984, the market value of the land acquired in pursuance of two notification published under section 4 of the Act on December 7, 1972 and April 14, 1974, in this very village for the development of Sector 8 of this complex, was determined at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square yard and Rs. 19/- per square yard respectively. It is not in dispute the Sector 8 of this complex adjoins Sector 3 i.e., the sector which has now been developed as a result market value of the acquired land in these cases has to be determined on the basis of these two earlier judicial precedents,i.e. R.F.As. Nos 585 and 586 of 1981 which by now have concededly assumed finality so far as the acquiring authorities are concerned. In the latter case while increasing the rate of compensation from Rs/-17 to Rs. 19/- per square yard, the interregnum between the two acquisitions, i.e., December 7, 1972 and April 14, 1974, was taken into account and in the light of earlier decisions of this Court, the rate was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 1/- per square yard per year.

(3.) Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, however, contends that instead of the above noted rise in the market price of the acquired land at the rate of Re. 1/- per square yard, per year, it should be at the rate of 12% per annum. This according to the learned counsel, appears to be the rationale behind the newly introduced sub-section (1A) to section 23 of the Act. I, however, find it difficult to accept this stand of the learned counsel. The rise in the market price of the acquired land as referred to in the earlier paragraph of the judgment has been resorted to in the light of the earlier precedents to find out the market value of the acquired land as on December 7, 1972, the date of which the notification under section 4 of the Act had been issued. The amount referred join sub-section (1A) of section 23 of the Act is to be paid only by way of additional amount to the claimants. There is nothing in this sub-section nor any other factors of material has been brought to my notice to indicate that the Parliament assumed that market price of land to be acquired continues to rise at the rate of 12% per annum. Had that been so, the Legislature would have made its intention explicit. Further, the amount payable under this sub-section has nothing to do with the determination of the market value of the acquired land and rather, on the other hand, this amount is only payable in addition to the market value of the acquired land. I thus repel this contention of Mr. Jain.