Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BAHADUR CHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bahadur Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr - RFA-2600-2001 [2007] RD-P&H 530 (17 January 2007)

R.F.A. No.2600 of 2001 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.F.A. No.2600 of 2001

Date of decision: November 29,2006

Bahadur Chand ( since deceased) V. State of Haryana and another through LR-Ravinder Kumar

son of Bahadur Chand

CORAM; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: S/Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate

Ashwani Talwar,Advocate

Sanjay Vij,Advocate

D.S.Malik,Advocate

Sidharth Sarup,Advocate

V.M.Gupta,Advocate

Sushil Jain,Advocate

Som Nath Saini,Advocate,

A.K.Bura,,Advocate

Vishal Gupta,Advocate

Vikrant Sharma,Advocate

Harkesh Manuja,Advocate

H.L.Bhatia, Advocate

Sarvdeep Saini,Advocate

R.S.Kundu,Advocate

Sachin Mittal,Advocate

S.S.Bedi, Advocate,

Shailender Singh,Advocate

Rameshwar Malik, Advocate

Pritam Saini,Advocate

N.S.Dhull,Advocate,

P.S.Rana,Advocate,

Tahar Singh Anchal,Advocate

for the claimant-landowners.

Shri Hawa Singh Hooda,Advocate General,Haryana with Shri Ramesh Hooda,Advocate for the respondent-State.

Viney Mittal,J.

This judgment shall dispose of a batch of first appeals as all the appeals have arisen out of a common acquisition R.F.A. No.2600 of 2001 2

proceedings. Whereas the claimants landowners have approached this court for enhancement of the market value, the State of Haryana has filed the appeals claiming reduction in the market value. In some of the appeals filed by the State of Haryana, the claimants have filed cross-objections. The said cross-objections are also being disposed of through the present judgment.

Vide notification dated March 2,1993 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), 137.74 acres of land in villages, Mauja Maqdum Jagdan, Mauja Patti Taraf Insar, Sarai Bachhra, Azizullapur and Nizampur was notified for acquisition for utilisation of the land for development and establishment of Sector 18, Panipat. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on March 1,1994. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land through his award dated February 28,1996. The market value for the acquired land of village Mauja Maqdum Jagdan was assessed at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre; the acquired land in village Mauja Patti Taraf Insar was assessed to the market value at the rate of Rs.4,50,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/- andRs.3,00,000/-per acre; the land of village Sarai Bachhra was assessed at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre; Rs.1,20,000/- per acre was awarded as market value for the acquired land of village Azizullapur; and the acquired land in village Nizampur was assessed at the market value of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre.

The claimant-landowners remained dissatisfied with the assessment of the market value and claimed references under section 18 of the Act. The matter was duly referred.

In reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence in support of their respective claims. The oral as well as R.F.A. No.2600 of 2001 3

documentary evidence was led. The reference Court relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jogi Ram etc. v.

State of Haryana 1997(2) P.L.R. 303 (Ex.P33) and taking into consideration that in Jogi Ram's case notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on December 15,1982, whereas in the present acquisition proceedings, notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on March 2,1993, an increase at the rate of 12% per year was granted. Consequently, the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs.185.60 per square yard. The claimants were also held entitled to the statutory benefits in accordance with law.

As noticed above, the claimants as well as State of Haryana have approached this Court through the present appeals.

Although the learned counsel appearing for the parties have raised various contentions in support of their respective claims but it would be relevant to notice, at the out set, that in a separate batch of appeals i.e. R.F.A. No.1379 of 1994 ( Nand Lal and others V. State of Haryana and another) and other connected appeals, this court through a separate judgment of even date i.e.

November 29,2006 has assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.125/- per square yard. In Nand Lal's case also the acquired land was situated in Patti Taraf Insar and Mauja Maqdum Jagdan and had been notified for acquisition through notification dated February 23, 1989 issued under section 4 of the Act. Thus, it would be appropriate to assess the market value of the present acquired land also keeping in view the assessment made in Nand Lal's case (supra).

As noticed above, in Nand Lal's case notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on February 23,1989, whereas in the present case the notification under section 4 of the Act has been issued on March 2,1993. Thus, there is a gap of four years. The R.F.A. No.2600 of 2001 4

claimant-landowners are entitled to an increase of 12% per year for the aforesaid time gap. Since in Nand Lal's case, the market value has been assessed at the rate of Rs.125/- per square yard, therefore, an increase of Rs.60/- has to be reasonably granted to the claimants. In this view of the matter, the claimant are entitled to the market value at the rate of Rs.185/- per square yard. The reference Court has already assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.185.60 per square yard. In these circumstances, the assessment made by the reference Court is identical to the conclusion reached by this Court. Consequently, in my considered view, neither any further enhancement is possible in favour of the claimants nor the grievance made by the State of Haryana with regard to the assessment being on the higher side can be sustained. The assessment made by the learned reference Court is wholly justified and does not require any further interference.

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeals and cross-objections. The same are consequently dismissed.

November 29,2006 ( 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.