PARSAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order the Court proposes to decide all these connected Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 244 and 245 of 1988 as common questions of facts and law arise in these appeals. All these appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking further enhancement in compensation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case reveal that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 28.2.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act acquired land of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) for public purpose i.e. for establishment of New Grain Market Committee, Gharaunda, District Karnal. The Collector vide his award dated 5.12.1980 awarded compensation @ Rs. 14,240/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimants moved the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Act and demanded Rs. 1,60,000/- per are as market value of their land. The Additional District Judge, Karnal, before whom references came for disposal, vide his award dated October 3, 1984, enhanced the compensation by holding that the market value of the land, when notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued was Rs. 16.53 per sq. yard. Besides enhancing the market value of the land, the claimants were also held entitled to solatium @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till realisation of the amount. As mentioned above, the obvious prayer of the claimants herein is for enhancing the compensation by fixing the market value of the land at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act to be far more than the one that has been granted by the learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) STILL being aggrieved, the claimants filed Letters Patent Appeal bearing No. 238 to 252 and 289 of 1987 which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th of February, 1997. The judgment of the learned single judge was set aside and the case was remanded to be decided by a Single Judge. Before the matter might proceed any further, it may be mentioned that the first contention of Mr. C.B. Goel, learned Counsel representing the claimants is that the claimants had filed Letter Patent Appeal with a prayer that the market value assessed by the learned single Judge was inadequate and it may be further enhanced and that in the appeals filed by the claimants, the Letters Patent Bench could not set aside even that part of the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby appeals preferred by the claimants were partly allowed. This argument of the learned Counsel has to be summarily rejected as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court has assumed finality, having not been challenged in the Apex Court and is binding upon the parties. Evaluating the evidence in this case and being totally uninfluenced of what might have been observed by the Letters Patent Bench, while remanding all these cases to a single Judge, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a case where any further enhancement of compensation is at all called for. Quite to the contrary, these are perhaps some of those rare cases where if the State had filed an appeal, there was scope for even upsetting the market value assessed by the Additional District Judge.