STATE OF HARYANA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and award dated 24.11.1997 the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, answered 36 references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The State as well as the claimants felt dis-satisfied from relief granted and they preferred regular first appeals before this court against the said judgment. The State preferred 35 appeals praying for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants and restoration of the Collector's award. On the other hand, the claimants preferred 34 appeals praying for further enhancement of the awarded amount.

(2.) VIDE notification dated 10.12.1992 issued by the State of Haryana, the State intended to acquire 230.42 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Palwal for development and utilisation of the land as residential areas for Sectors 1 and 2, Palwal. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,35,000/- per acre. The claimants being dis-satisfied from the conclusion of the compensation awarded by the Collector, preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per square yard, which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge who vide the impugned judgment, enhanced the claim and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per square yard with statutory benefits. The learned Additional District Judge while enhancing the compensation entirely relied upon Ex.P.1, the judgment passed by the same Court in the case of Pohap Singh.

(3.) I must also notice that the learned counsel appearing from either side have not referred to any other evidence except to the basic contention that Ex.P.1 has been the subject-matter of an appeal before this court in R.F.A. No. 473 of 1998, State of Haryana and Another v. Pohap Singh and R.F.A. No. 4769 and Another. In substance, all the arguments raised and the evidence relied upon in that case have been repeated by the learned counsel for the parties. The learned trial Court while pronouncing Ex.P.1 (Pohap Singh's case) has considered different evidence including judicial pronouncements, letter of the State as well as sale instances. In view of the above, I would have no hesitation to follow the judgment of Pohap Singh in the present case as well.