BHURA ALIAS BHURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of R.F.A. No. 1704 to 1710, 1957, 2080 to 2082, 2181 to 2187, 2208 to 2211, 2315, 2316, 2433 to 2435 and 2700 of 1994, which arise from common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 1.4.1994.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present Regular First Appeal fall within a very narrow compass. The land belonging to various claimants/appellants was acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the concerned Government on 11th of March, 1981. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.12.1983. The award in regard to the land in question being award No. 9 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula on 12th of September, 1986. The learned Collector awarded Rs. 28,640/- per acre for Chahi land while Rs. 11,360/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. In addition thereto awarded 30 per cent compulsory acquisition charges and 12 per cent per annum additional amount from 11.3.1981 to 12.9.1986. The claimants filed references under Section 18 of the Act on 14.2.1991 which were duly considered by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and he finally passed the award as aforestated awarding a sum of Rs. 91,312/- per acre plus solatium at the rate of 30 per cent per annum and additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum under Sections 23-A of the Act from 11.3.1981 to 12.9.1986. Further also awarded 9 per cent per annum as interest on the amount of compensation for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter 15 per cent per annum till payment under Section 28 of the Act. The amount of compensation was applied to the entire land in question. Still being dissatisfied from the award, the claimants filed the aforestated Regular First Appeals before this Court.

(3.) The main ground of attack to the impugned award is that the land of different villages including Pipli, Ratgal etc. which was acquired by the same notification by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, this Court has already awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,19,333/- per acre in R.F.A. No. 2756 of 1988 decided on 21.2.1991 copy thereof was placed on as Ex.P.37. Keeping this and aforementioned judgments the enhancement is prayed for as the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra is inadequate and is not in consonance with the principles applicable to the present case.