HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to decide LPA Nos. 866 of 2000, 871 of 2000, 960 of 2000 and 286 of 2002 as the same arise from a judgment dated 03.06.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which the Regular First Appeals preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated 06.05.1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, were dismissed.

(2.) THE facts necessary to appreciate the claim of the appellants are that the State of Haryana to develop and utilize the land for residential and commercial purposes and to establish proposed Sector-16, Karnal in the colony developed by Haryana Urban Development Authority acquired 19.02 acres of land in the revenue estate of Karnal. For this purpose, the State Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 22.02.1984 and thereafter, notification under Section 6 was issued on 19.02.1987. The possession of the land was taken by the Government and the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award granting the claimants compensation for their acquired land vide award No. 4 of 1988-89 dated 16.11.1989. Compensation for plain and levelled land (66.86 acres) was granted @ Rs. 2,14,944.00 per acre and the low lying area (25.16 acres) @ Rs. 1,68,000.00 per acre.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Additional District Judge relied upon Exhibits P-2 and P-5, the sale instances and upon taking average of these two sale instances, a cut was imposed @ 1/4th, which led to the award of Rs. 76/- per sq. yard to the claimants vide his award dated 06.05.1993. It has been contended that this cut of 1/4th is unreasonable as the said sale deed Ex. P-2 is dated 06.05.1983, it relates to 5 Biswa of land, with sale price of Rs. 26,250/- and the rate comes to Rs. 104/- per sq. yard. Ex.P-5 is sale deed dated 08.05.1982, it relates to 301 sq. yards and the sale price of this land was Rs. 30,000/-, which comes to Rs. 99/- per sq. yard. These two sale instances are before the notification under Section 4 was issued and the same relates to the land, which was part of the acquisition. He contends that even if the average is to be taken, the same comes to Rs. 101.50/- per sq. yard. Since the area, which has been acquired, is situated within the municipal limit of Karnal, abuts the abadi of Karnal Township, is situated on the Grand Trunk Road and in its close proximity, there are many factories, rice shellers, cold storage etc. and large number of commercial establishments had already come up in close vicinity of the acquired land, the cut of 25% imposed by the Reference Court was not justified rather no cut could be imposed. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Harbans Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others to contend that when the sale instances are close to the date when the acquisition proceedings are initiated and the land falls within the municipal limits, cut on average price cannot be sustained. The land, in any case, has been found to be situated on G.T. Road and it has been also held to be of great potential. This would further substantiate his submission that no cut should have been imposed as it was the correct market price at the relevant time. He submits that, rather an increase should have been granted @ 12% per annum as the sale instances are of the years 1983 and 1982 whereas the land was acquired in the year 1984.