HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the development and utilisation for residential area in the urban estate of Ambala, the State Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 26.5.1981 intending to acquire a large chunk of land. In furtherance thereto a notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.1.1989. The total land sought to be acquired was nearly 250.51 acres in villages Patti Mehar Sonda and Jandli of District Ambala. This acquisition of land led to passing of 3 different awards i.e. award Nos. 4, 11, and 12 respectively. Different amount of compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in different awards. Vide award No. 11 and 12 both dated 13.9.1986, following compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for different kinds of land: a) Chahi land : Rs. 34,500/- per acre b) Barani land : Rs. 27,520/- per acre c) Banjar and Gair Mumkin : Rs. 13,760/- per acre

(2.) These three judgments have given rise to 214 Regular First Appeals which have been preferred by the claimants as well as by the State Government of Haryana. With this background, I propose to take up the RFAs arising from the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ambala, dated 6.5.1992. The leading cases in this bunch are RFA No. 2872 of 1992 titled as 'Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana' and R.F.A. No. 3603 of 92 titled as 'State v. Harpal Singh'. It will be appropriate to dispose of these R.F.As. together which would obviously have the result of disposing of other connected R.F.As. arising from the same judgment.

(3.) From the above noted facts it is clear that the land was acquired under same notification in village Patti Mehar, Jandli and Sonda which gave rise to the appeal in the aforestated cases, though highest compensation was awarded to the claimants vide judgment dated 6.5.1992 and 14.2.1992. But the claimants were still not satisfied and have approached this Court for enhancement of compensation, while the State aggrieved by the same judgment to the extent that the compensation ought to be reduced and given at par with the compensation awarded to the other claimants i.e., Rs. 57,000/-. The State has not preferred any appeal in the other two judgments where the learned District Judge has awarded the compensation of Rs. 57,000/- per acre, to the claimants. As such, the compensation awarded to the claimants has been accepted by the State. But in order to critically examine the respective contentions of the parties for enhancement and/or reduction of the compensation awarded, references to the evidence adduced on record is relevant. The claimants produced 3 sale instances on record being Ex.P.1 to P.3. In addition thereto, the claimants have also proved on record Ex.P.7, the site plan. Reliance on behalf of the claimants was also placed on Ex.P.5, Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.16. It was contended that the judgments Ex.P.5 and P.13 have already become final and would form definite basis for awarding enhanced compensation to the claimants. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard or in any case Rs. 136/- with 12% increase per year. To meet this case of the claimants, the respondents produced no oral evidence in their support and only tendered Ex.R.1 which is the copy of award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 17.3.1987 in LAC No. 105/4 of 10.3.1986 titled as 'Mahant Ram Narain Dass v. State of Haryana'. As is evident, the basic factor which falls for determination by the Court is the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the petitioners in regard to sale instances or otherwise. Before I enter into this field of controversy, I would prefer to refer to the findings arrived at by the learned. District Judge on the issue of payment of compensation, which run as under:-