RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of R.F.A. No. 1534 of 1977 filed by the landowner and cross R.F.A. No. 1463 of 1977, filed by the State of Haryana against the same award of the Additional District Judge.

(2.) Vide notification dated October 1, 1973, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State of Haryana acquired 100.06 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Faridabad, District Gurgaon, in Faridabad Ballabgarh controlled area, for the development and utilization of land as a residential area for Sector 28. This Sector is situated along the Delhi-Mathura Road, just adjacent to Sector 19, towards Delhi side. It is admitted case of the parties that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits of old Faridabad Township. The Land Acquisition Collector, by award dated February 22, 1974, awarded compensation for land under the path-ways (Rastajat) at rate of Rs. 525/- per Biswa Pukhta and for the remaining land, at the rate of 1,050/- per Biswa Pukhta. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference by the claimants, refused to enhance the compensation, vide award dated May 9, 1977, except for hina plantation and garden. The claimant has come up in appeal for the enhancement of compensation whereas the State for reduction of compensation in regard to hina plantation and garden.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the Additional District Judge on the ground that he has just quoted the instances brought on the record and has neither appreciated them nor has discussed them in a proper manner while deciding the matter. According to the learned counsel, the decision of the Court below is cryptic and it has gravely erred in saying that the Land Acquisition Collector had reserved the market value much in excess of the value in spite of the fact that he noticed the great potentiality of the land and its situation where a large number of factories and other residential buildings had already come up. Since there is no discussion of the relevant instances by the Court below, we endeavour to deal with the same here.