URMILA KAKAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order of G.C. Mittal, J. dated 3.9.1987 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 1323 of 1983.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that vide notification No. LAC(P)-NTLA-73/2161 dated 22.6.1973 published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extra-ordinary) on the same date under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1894 (in short the 'Act'), the Haryana Government notified that the land (subject matter of the award dated 12.12.1978 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula, Urban Estate, Haryana, Chandigarh) was likely to be acquired for the public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land as residential/commercial and Industrial Areas in the Urban Estates (Panchkula) to be set up in the area of village Raily, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 8.6.1976 whereby the government declared that it was satisfied that the land under acquisition was needed at public expenses for the aforesaid public purpose. The area given in the notification under Section 6 of the Act was 1963 Kanals 15 Marlas (245.47 acres) but the Collector gave award with regard to the area measuring 308 Kanals 14 Marlas (38.59 Standard Acres only), the balance area having already been acquired.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimant-appellants submitted reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value of the acquired land and fruit trees. The Collector made the reference to the Court of District Judge, Ambala. The claimants demanded the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 30/- per Square Yard and an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation of fruit trees averring that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded a very inadequate and unreasonable compensation for their acquired land and fruit trees. The Haryana State in its written statement submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded sufficient and just compensation of the acquired property on the basis of the prevalent market value. Hence, no enhancement in compensation is called for.