DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment dated 26.9.1988, passed by the learned Single Judge in R.F.A. No. 2040 of 1986 and connected appeals as well as cross-objections filed by the claimants and the State against the judgment dated 19.4.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala on various reference applications filed by the claimants.

(2.) VIDE notification dated 1.9.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') the Government of Haryana acquired land measuring 263 bighas 14 biswas situated in villages Nangal Sodhian, Ishlam Nagar and Bhogpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.2.1983. Land Acquisition Collector passed the award dated 7.7.1983 for payment of compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 4785/- per acre along with 15% solatium. In the reference applications filed by the appellants, the Additional District Judge determined the market value of the land in question at the uniform rate of Rs. 8/- per square yard. He also directed the payment of 30% solatium and interest in terms of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Still not satisfied, the claimants filed regular first appeals and cross-objections, which were later on treated as regular appeals, and pleaded for further enhancement of compensation.

(3.) THE first contention urged by Shri H.S. Gill, learned counsel for the appellants, is that while fixing the market value of the land with reference to Exs. P.2 to P.4 and P.5/3, the learned Single Judge should not have ignored the earnest money paid to the prospective vendors by the vendees. He argued that the advance payment of earnest money is natural in such transactions and, therefore, the total value of the land as indicated in the sale deeds should have been taken into consideration for determination of the market value. Shri Gill placed reliance on Rani v. Santa Bala, AIR 1971 SC 1028. Shri Vashishth argued that the learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge have given cogent reasons for not taking into consideration the so, called earnest money paid by the vendors of the sale-deeds Ex. P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.5/3 and the Appeal Bench should not interfere with the same.