STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR, SONEPAT Vs. SMT USHA RANI AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2011-9-475
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 02,2011

State Of Haryana Through Collector, Sonepat Appellant
VERSUS
Smt Usha Rani And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

JASWANT SINGH, J. - (1.) The State of Haryana has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby the petitioners-JD has been directed to make the payment of compensation after considering the amount of solatium as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "1894 Act") being a part of market value and pay the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum as provided under Section 23(1A) of 1894 Act on such market value.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the land of the respondents- Decree Holders was acquired by the petitioner-State of Haryana for development of Sector 7, Gohana, District Sonepat. The award was passed on 11.11.1992 by the learned Land Acquisition Collector (for short "Collector") and the payment in pursuance of the same was received by the respondents-land owners. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat under Section 18 of 1894 Act, who passed the award dated 5.2.2001 determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. yards. Thereafter, execution petition was filed by the respondents alleging that the amount awarded by the learned Additional District Judge has not been paid by the petitioner-JD (State of Haryana) on account of the fact that the petitioner-JD have not calculated the additional amount of 12% per annum on market value plus 30% of solatium amount as provided under Section 23(2) of 1894 Act, which was, however, disputed by the petitioner-State of Haryana.
(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh and Another passed on 8.2.2011 in Civil Appeal No.1494 of 2011 (reported as (2011) 4 SCC 734), the present petition deserves to be allowed as the respondents-decree holders are not entitled for the benefit of additional amount of 12% per annum on the amount of solatium as stipulated under Section 23(2) of 1894 Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.