SUBASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE fifteen appeals bearing RFA No. 2970 of 1994 and RFA Nos. 2259 to 2272 of 1994 and the Cross Objections No. 40-CI to 42-CI of 1995, 47-CI of 1995 and 104-CI of 2009 in respective appeals, having been arisen out of the references against the common award dated 1.4.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala, are being decided by way of one common judgment. By filing RFA No. 2970 of 1994, the claimant - land-owner Subhash Chand and Cross-Objectors in respective appeals have sought enhancement in the compensation in lieu of acquisition of their land, while through the other fourteen appeals, the State of Haryana has challenged the compensation granted by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) FACTUAL background of the case is that vide notification No. SE/PWD/ B&R/CHD/534-R dated 29.6.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein or short 'the Act'), the State of Haryana proposed to acquire 3.49 acres of land in village Naraingarh, Hadbast No. 88, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Ultimately, on measurement, the land was found to be 3.21 acres. Thereafter, the State of Haryana vide notification No. SE/PWD/B&R/CHD/627 dated 11.2.1987 Factual background of the is that vide notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and published n Govt. Gazette on 16.2.1987, declared the aforesaid area of 3.21 acres as acquired. After seeking the objections, ultimately, the Collector vide his award dated 29.4.1987, assessed the market value of the land as under : (compensation per acre-in Rs.) "l. Chahi## Gair Mumkin Makan and plot 1,00,320/ 2. Barani## Banjar land inferior to Chahi Land 66,880/-

(3.) BANJAR Land and Gair Mumkin Land 16,800/- 3. Feeling dissatisfied with the above compensation, the land owners - claimants (herein referred as 'the claimants') preferred references before the Collector, which were referred to the District Judge for disposal. By way of their claim references, the claimants submitted that the acquired land has high potential value, having worth more than Rs. 2000/- per marla and they were entitled to get compensation as per the actual market value of the land. It was further pleaded that some valuable trees were also standing,for which they were not paid any compensation. 4. While appearing in the references before the Additional District Judge, Ambala, the State submitted the reply, pleading that the Collector had assessed the market value of the land as per fact situation at the spot, which was quite fair, reasonable and adequate, and the market value could not be assessed more than what was assessed by the Collector.