MAMAN CHAND BUDHIA Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of three connected Regular First Appeal Nos. 871, 986 and 1162 of 1981 as common questions of law and fact arise in all these matters. Learned counsel for the parties also suggest likewise. The facts have, however, been extracted from RFA No. 871 of 1981.

(2.) THESE appeals have been filed by the claimants, who, in the matter of reference, filed by them under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act') succeeded partly, inasmuch as learned Additional District Judge allowed their reference application by determining the market value of their land @ Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. Naturally, in the present appeals, the claimants-appellants seek further enhancement of compensation by determining the market value of land @ Rs. 60/- per sq. yard as was their demand all through.

(3.) BEFORE the Court might determine the market value of the acquired land, based upon sale instances produced by respective parties before the learned Additional District Judge, it would be relevant to mention here that the acquired land is situated in the Municipal limits of Bhiwani since the year 1972. The land adjoins Circular road, Bhiwani. The colonies, like, Kamla Nagar and Municipal colony had since already been raised in the vicinity of the acquired land. Even though, there were not much residential houses in the close vicinity of the land, constructions were existing anterior to the Circular road and that there was not much trend of development towards the side of the acquired land. The very fact that the land was located within the Municipal limits and was only at a distance of 200 yards from Kamla Nagar colony, it certainly had the potential of being converted into a residential or commercial sector. The findings pertaining to the land being within the municipal limits, adjoining the circular road and located close to the colonies, like, Kamla Nagar and Municipal Colony, as recorded by learned Additional District Judge, have not been disputed by either of the parties.