STATE OF HARYANA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When Regular First Appeals hearing Nos. 112 to 120 of 1997 and other connected matters came up for hearing before this Court on May 28, 1997, learned counsel for the parties informed the Court that the award rendered by the learned Additional District Judge was entirely based upon an earlier award of the Court which in turn was subject matter of another appeal bearing No. 1767 of 1995 and other connected matters. It is for this precise reason that vide an interim order of the even date, i.e. May 28, 1997, this Court ordered that RFA No. 1767 of 1995 along with other connected matters be fixed for hearing. By this order, I therefore, propose to dispose of these RFAs, i.e. RFA Nos. 112 to 120 to 1997 and other connected matters. It may be mentioned here that in first set of appeals, whereas RFA Nos. 57, 58, 60, 61, 112 to 120, 122, 133, 199 to 206, 136, 293, 320, 326 to 328, 333, 334 of 1997, 2377, 2477 of 1996, 787 to 790 and 496 of 1997 have been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement of the compensation from the one awarded by the Addl. District Judge. State has filed appeals bearing Nos. 497 to 504, 508 to 513, 516 to 563, 565 to 567 of 1997 with a view to set aside the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge and restore the one passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Likewise, in the set of RFAs connected with RFA 1767 of 1995 appeals bearing Nos. 1311 to 1328 of 1995 have been filed by the claimants obviously for further enhancement of the compensation assessed by the learned Addl. District Judge, whereas State has filed appeals bearing Nos. 1767 to 1789 of 1995 for setting aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge and for restoring the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector. The facts leading to filing of RFA No. 1767 of 1995 need a necessary mention.

(2.) The State of Haryana, while entering defence, pleaded in the written statement filed by it that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Collector was adequate and fair and there was no reasonable ground to enhance the same.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-