Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOOP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhoop Singh v. State of Haryana - RFA-455-1994 [2006] RD-P&H 3314 (19 May 2006)

R.F.A. No. 455 of 1994(O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.F.A. No. 455 of 1994(O&M)

Date of decision: May 3,2006

Bhoop Singh V. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri V.K.Jain,Sr. Advocate with Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate, Shri R.K.Jain, Advocate,

Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate,

Shri Sudhir Aggarwal,Advocate

Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate

Shri Rajinder Goel, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Hooda,Advocate for the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.

This judgment shall dispose of a batch of first appeals as all the appeals have arisen out of common award passed by the learned reference court. These appeals have been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation for their acquired land.

A notification dated July 13,1988, under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ( hereinafter referred to as " the Act") was issued whereby land measuring 124.56 acres was notified for acquisition in village Basai, Had-Bast No.50, District Gurgaon. Subsequently, a declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued and the aforesaid land was acquired. Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated March 24,1989 assessed the market value of the acquired land by categorising the acquired land in three categories. For Chahi Land, compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre; for Magda land, market value of the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre; and for Ghair Mumkin, compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre. The claimants remained dissatisfied and claimed R.F.A. No. 455 of 1994(O&M) 2

higher compensation and, consequently, sought references under section 18 of the Act. The matter was duly referred.

During the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. The learned reference Court through the award under challenge assessed the entire acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs.46/- per square yard. The claimants were also held entitled to other statutory benefits under the amended provisions of the Act.

The claimants have still remained dissatisfied and have approached this court through the present appeals.

At the out-set, learned counsel for the claimants have argued that this court in RFA No.1767 of 1995 decided on July 25,1997 ( State of Haryana and another V. Om Parkash and others) had fixed the market value of the acquired land in village Basai itself at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard. Learned counsel have, thus,argued that in Om Parkash"s case (Supra), notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on March 8,1989 and the acquired land in the aforesaid case was also a part of Had Bast No.50 of village Basai and,therefore, the aforesaid assessment in Om Parkash's (supra) be also adopted by this Court while assessing the market value for the present acquired land in the present appeals as well.

I have perused the judgment in Om Parkash's case (supra).

The said judgment is in fact reported as 1998(2) P.L.J.163. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgment, I find that the notification under section 4 of the Act in that case was issued on March 8,1989 whereby 439.25 acres of land was notified for acquisition for the development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial area in Sectors 9, 9-A and 10 at Gurgaon. The aforesaid land had been acquired from village Basai itself. The reference Court in that case assessed the market value of the aforesaid acquired land at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard. The aforesaid award of the reference Court was challenged by filing an appeal by the State of Haryana. This court, although, differed with the reasoning adopted by the reference Court, but by ultimate conclusion assessed Rs.150/- per square yard as the market value of the aforesaid acquired land. In these circumstances, it would be absolutely justified to base the assessment of the present acquired land on the judgment in Om Parkash's case (supra).

However, I find in Om Parkash's case, notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on March 8,1989 whereas notification in R.F.A. No. 455 of 1994(O&M) 3

the present case was issued on July 13,1988 i.e. approximately eight months prior to the notification in Om Parkash's case (supra). Therefore, it would be quite appropriate to apply a deduction on account of the time gap between the two notifications. In my considered view, when in Om Parkash's case (supra), the assessment of the acquired land had been made at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard, it would be appropriate to award the compensation of Rs.130/- per square yard for the present acquired land.

Consequently, the present appeals are allowed and it is held that the claimants land-owners would be entitled to a market value of Rs.130/- per square yard for their acquired land. Besides the aforesaid market value, the claimants would also be entitled to all other statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act. The present appeals are disposed of accordingly.

It appears from the record that CM No.3981-CI of 2004 was filed in RFA No.455 of 1994. Through the aforesaid CM, the applicants had sought to produce the copies of the two awards dated January 7,1994 and March 11,2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon in some reference applications. In view of the fact that the present appeals are disposed of on the basis of the assessment made in Om Parkash's case (supra), the aforesaid application filed by the applicants is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.

May 3,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.