ATAM PARKASH Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two appeals along with connected 108 regular first appeals arise from one and the common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, on 25.2.1999. All the cases are based upon common documentary and oral evidence, the lead case being Atam Parkash (supra) As common questions of fact and law arise for determination in all these appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment.

(2.) The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on 19.5.1992 intending to acquire 504-27 acres of land in the revenue estate of villages Satrod Khas, Satrod Khurd and Hissar. In furtherance thereto, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published on 18.5.1993 for 478.44 acres of land, but ultimately only 304.28 acres of land formed the subject matter of the Collector's award dated 17.5.1995. This land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, development and utilisation of the land for industrial sectors 9 and 11 by Haryana Urban Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as HUDA.

(3.) The learned Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.2 dated 17.5.1995 after inviting objections from the claimants awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre. The claimants felt dis-satisfied from this award and, thus, preferred references under Section 18 of the Act claiming enhancement of compensation. The learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases vide award dated 25.2.1999 answered 100 references and enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants from Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 235/- per square yard for the lands falling in village Hisar and Rs. 135/- per square yard for the lands falling in villages Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas. Pronouncement of this award resulted in filing of regular first appeals both by the State HUDA as well as the claimants. The claimants in their appeals pray for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their lands, while the State/HUDA contends that the enhancement given by the learned Additional District Judge is unreasonably excessive and pray for restoration of the Collector's award. Out of all these appeals, 110 appeals have been listed before this Court, 48 being State/HUDA appeals and 62 of the claimants.