KHIRAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 1-8.6.1984 for acquiring land measuring about 7757 kanals 6 marlas in village Bhojraj, District Hissar. In furtherance thereto notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12.4.1985. The land measuring 7744 kanals 15 marlas was the actual land which was acquired and in relation to which the learned Land Acquisition Collector passed award No. 8/85-86 dated 17.9.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector after considering the report of the department classified the land into three different kinds and awarded the following compensation to the claimants:- <TAB> Nehri/Chahi : Rs. 20,000/- per acre Tal/Barani : Rs. 12,0007- per acre Tibba/Gair Mumkin : Rs. 8,0007- per acre</TAB>

(2.) The objectors felt discontented by the amount awarded to them for acquisition of their respective lands and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector in all made 79 references and all these 79 references were disposed of and answered by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide his judgment and award dated 24.12.1988. 4 references were answered by the same learned Judge by following the judgment dated 24.12.1988 while pronouncing the judgment dated 4.4.1990. In other words, all these references were answered by the above mentioned two different judgments. Vide both the judgments the learned Additional District Judge reduced the categories of the land from three to two and awarded the following amounts to the claimants and enhanced the amount as under:- <TAB> Chahi/Nehri : Rs. 25,000/- per acre Barani/Tal/Tibba/Gair Mumkin : Rs. 16,0007- per acre.</TAB>

(3.) The claimants still felt that the amount of compensation awarded to them was not adequate and, therefore, they preferred regular first appeals before this Court against both the awards. On the other hand, the State was dis-satisfied as according to it the amount awarded was much in excess than the amount which the claimants were entitled to receive. Consequently, 153 regular first appeals have been preferred before this Court, 78 by the State and 75 by the claimants. In other words the present two regular first appeals and 152 other connected appeals arise from the two common judgments from the same award of the Collector and from the same notification and in relation to the same land acquired in village Bhojraj. As the above appeals and the connected appeals raise common question of fact and law based on common premises, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these 153 regular first appeals by a common judgment.