- (1.) These appeals by special leave arise from judgment of the division bench of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 573 of 1980 dated 1/5/1984. The lands in a total extent of 27 acres were acquired by a notification published tinder Section 4 (1 on 22/12/1972 and 31/ 1/1973 for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 28/ 11/1973 determined the compensation Rs 5. 00 per acre. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge made two blocks and awarded compensation Rs. 120. 00 per maria for 'a' block and for the 'b' block Rs. 100. 00 per maria. On appeal, the Single Judge of the High court awarded compensation Rs. 140. 00 per maria by the judgment dated 22/5/1980 for all types of land. On appeal the bench of the High court following the ratio in Mange Ram v. State of Haryana made two blocks. 'a' block up to the proximity of 50 ft. as one block and blocks 'b' and 'c' thereafter and fixed valuation for 'a' block Rs. 8. 00 per sq. yd. and for 'b' block and 'c' block Rs. 6.75 per sq. yd. Following that ratio, the appeals treated the lands as 'b' and 'c' blocks and awarded compensation Rs 6.75 per sq. yd. with usual 15% solatium and interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of taking possession till the payment. Seeking further enhancement at least Rs. 8. 00 as awarded in Mange Ram case, these appeals came to be filed.
(2.) Shri Satish Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, contended that the High court, without discussing the evidence, has reached the conclusion that the lands in question are on a par with 'b' and 'c' blocks as determined in Mange Ram case and awarded compensation Rs. 6.75 per sq. yd. The lands in question, in fact, are situated on Rohtak-Delhi Road, abutting the main Rohtak-Delhi Road, much more nearer to the front portion to the road than in Mange Ram case. Therefore, all the lands are to be treated as 'a' block and compensation should have been paid Rs. 8. 00 per sq. yd. , though the appellants have been claiming Rs. 10. 00 per sq. yd. Even otherwise this is a fit case for remand for reconsideration of the evidence in the light of the ratio in Mange Ram case. Shri 1. S. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent-State, contended that the appellants had agreed before the division bench that the lands in question are to be treated on a par with 'b' and 'c' blocks of lands in a Mange Ram case and having agreed for the same it is not open to the appellants to raise a fresh contention in this court to contend that the lands were situated on the front to Rohtak-Delhi Road and that, therefore, they are entitled to higher compensation.
(3.) Having given our anxious consideration to their respective contentions, we are of the view that the High court had done right in fixing the market value at Rs. 6.75 per sq. yd. The High court has noted thus : "The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the acquisition to which judgment in Mange Ram case relates not only bears proximity to the present acquisition in point of time but also in location as the two parcels of land in that case and in the instant cases are located in the close vicinity of each other. According to the learned counsel only a canal known as Chhotu Ram Canal intervenes the two acquired areas. The existence of this canal, in our view, cannot possibly be a ground to differentiate the market value of the two parcels of land, i. e. the presently acquired land and the land falling in 'b' and 'c' blocks which was ordered to be treated as one block in Mange Ram case. For that land the appellants were allowed compensation Rs. 6.75 per sq. yard. ";