JOGI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, we are disposing of 41 LPAs bearing L. P. A. Nos. 114, 115, 268, 315, 389, 472, 473, 474, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 529, 530, 531, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 656, 657, 658, 646, 685, 729, 730, 731, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 750 and 256 of 1996 as all these LPAs have been filed against the same judgment dated 7th July, 1995.

(2.) FOR the purpose of this judgment, the facts of L. P. A. No. 302 of 1996 have been taken. Vide Notification dated 15th December, 1982, issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the land involved in all these cases, was taken for the public purposes for the development and utilization as residential/commercial and Industrial Area in Sectors 11, 12 and 25 (Phase II) in Urban Estate, Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 59,200/- per acre. Since the landowners were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, reference Under Section 18 of the Act was made to the Additional District Judge, Karnal who vide his judgment/award, dated 1st August, 1988, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq. yard. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, all the appellants filed regular first appeals. All these appeals were disposed of by a common judgment dated 7th July, 1995, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge vide the aforesaid judgment, held that the land owners (appellants) were entitled to compensation of their acquired land at the rate of Rs. 72/- per sq. yard with proportionate costs, and they were further held entitled to grant of all statutory benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2)and 28 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, these appeals have been filed by the appellants.

(3.) MR . Deepak Sibal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of some other appellants reiterated the submissions made by Shri Ram Kumar Malik. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment had stated that whenever the land was under acquisition it could fetch the price much lower than the price prevalent in the market and in view of this observation, the deduction towards providing amenities to the extent of 40% was on the higher side. He also submitted that in view of the observations of the learned Single Judge that there was a rising trend in prices to the extent of 300% from the date when the land was acquired referred to 3rd acquisition in the case of Hukam Chand (supra), the learned Single Judge ought to have fixed the rate of land at Rs. 126/- per square yard instead of Rs. 120/ -. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbans Lal Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 600.