LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-142

SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 23, 2009
SADHU SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of 6 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 1268 to 1272 and 2009 of 1991 filed by the claimants against the impugned award of the Reference Court dated 14.1.1991 whereby their reference has been dismissed. Since identical question of law and facts are involved therein, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts, however, are taken from RFA No. 1268 of 1991.

(2.) LAND measuring 6.62 acres situated in village Rohan was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 14.5.1988 published on 16.5.1988 followed by notification of declaration issued and published under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.5.1988, at public expenses, for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of Drain No. E and G in villages Phaggu, Dessu Khurd and Rohan.

(3.) THE District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa (for short 'the Collector') vide his Award No. 12 dated 14.6.1989 while considering the entire land as 'Sem' (water logged) awarded compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre on the basis of rates supplied by the District Collector, Sirsa. In the award announced under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector has specifically mentioned that the land is not fit for cultivation and no crop was sown from the past many years and as such, no transaction for the land has been made. The Collector also observed that average sale price of Barani land during the past one year comes to Rs. 12,000/- per acre. Provoked by inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was categorically mentioned that the land is recorded as Barani in the revenue record, therefore, it should be at the most considered as Barani and should not have been treated as 'Sem' by the Collector of his own. The claim was refuted by the State of Haryana and as per the averment made in para 4, it was denied that land is Barani rather it was alleged that the entire area is water logged and is not fit for cultivation. It is also alleged that no crop whatsoever was sown by the appellant in the suit land which is apparent from the entries contained in the khasra girdawaris and jamabandis. In support of their claim, both the parties led their respective evidence. Besides the oral evidence, the claimants also produced on record revenue record which comprised of jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris. Jamabandis Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, Ex.P5 to Ex.P7, Ex.P9, Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 were produced whereas Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P4, Ex.P10 and Ex.P13 were produced besides sale deed Ex.P14. The learned Reference Court discussed the statement of Teja Singh, Revenue Patwari Halqa Maleri who appeared as PW6 and Mahinder Nath, Patwari, who appeared as RW2 and perused the Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 to come to a conclusion that the land in question is water logged because it is never shown to have been cultivated by the claimants and as such, the learned Reference Court maintained the award of the Collector.