BRIJ NANDAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The galaxy of the learned counsel appearing for the Parties in this set of fifty- three Regular First Appeals are agreed that the issues of law and tact are so substantially common, it not identical, that all these appeals may be disposed of by a single judgment.

(2.) By a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 6th Sept. 1988, published in the Government Gazette 23rd Sept. 1968. an area of 248.30 acres was sought to be compulsorily acquired for the public purpose of the planned development of Sector 16 of the New Industrial Township of Faridabad. The consequential notification under S 8 followed and in the subsequent Proceedings the Collector rendered his award on the 20th Jan. 1988, whereby he classified the whole of the area aforesaid into three categories, A, B and C and then proceeded to further subdivide each category into three kinds as shown in the following table <FRM>JUDGEMENT_68_TLP&H0_1979Html1.htm</FRM> It is manifest from the above that the Collector considered the whole land as agricultural and assessed its market value primarily 0n its quality as agricultural land He further awarded compensation for the buildings, wells,. trees and henna plants (for which the land in question seems to be particularly suited) in existence on the land in dispute primarily in accordance with the assessment of the value thereof made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The landowners feeling dissatisfied with the assessment of value both as regards the land and appendages thereto made as many as ninety-three claim-applications for references under S. 18 of the Act Of these 91 references were consolidated and tried together (two being decided separately).

(3.) The State of Haryana in contesting the aforesaid references took up the stand that more than ample compensation has already been awarded to the claimants It was stated on its behalf that the land in dispute had been correctly assessed as agricultural and the stand of the claimants that the same had primarily to be determined with regard to its potentiality of being used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, was sought to be denied. The claim with regard to the fragmentation of the land, as also with regard to the fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing Plants, etc, was further not admitted, On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were originally framed:-