IQBAL SINGH,J - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 2211 of 1989 filed on behalf of the State of Haryana (appellant) and Cross- objections No. 7 of 1990 filed on behalf of Smt. Bhagwati Devi (respondent) arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated June 2, 1989.
(2.) LAND measuring 3 Kanals and 12 Marlas was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide Notification dated June 13, 1975 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for extension of 'Sabzi Mandi' in Rewari town. The market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector was at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. A reference under Section 18 of the Act was made against this award. The Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide his judgment dated April 20, 1982, determined the market value of the acquired land on the date of the Notification of Rs. 40/- per square yard besides solatium at the rate of 15 per cent. It was further directed that the appellant-State would pay interest to the respondent at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of taking over possession i.e. January 8, 1976. The Additional District Judge also awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 2250/- to Lalu Ram (petitioner No. 2 before the Additional District Judge) besides solatium and interest, as stated above. Aggrieved against the judgment dated April 20, 1982, passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, respondent. Smt. Bhagwati Devi filed Regular First Appeal No. 1054 of 1982, which was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on June 2, 1989. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land and the sale deed (Exhibit P.19), came to the conclusion that the acquired land would have fetched the price of Rs. 219/- per square yard. However, by applying the cut of 1/3rd, the learned Single Judge increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 146/- per square yard. As regards the grant of statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of the Amended Land Acquisition Act, the learned Single Judge held that since the award had been announced by the Land Acquisition Court before April 30, 1982, the claimant could only be entitled to grant of solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on the market value determined in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition, as has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on May 16, 1989, while deciding Review Petition No. 671 of 1985 in Civil Appeal No. 1965 of 1984 : 1989(1) RRR 552 (SC) (Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.Rs. etc.) and several other cases.
(3.) THIS Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana (appellant) against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated June 2, 1989. At the time of motion hearing, the learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the appellant restricted his argument to the grant of benefit under Sections 23(1-A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended whereas the learned counsel for the respondent (Cross Objector) has confined his argument to the extent that cut on the market value determined with reference to the sale transaction (Exhibit P.19) by the learned Single Judge should have been 1/4th instead of 1/3rd.;