H.S.BHALLA,J - (1.) IN a free country like India, right to own property is a fundamental right given by the Constitution of India and every citizen, as per his desire, can possess moveable and immovable property, but at the same time, in the interest of State and General Public, the property of a person can be acquired, but certainly after awarding compensation to him and this is the spirit of law, which spells out from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short as "the Act").
(2.) BY this common judgment, I shall be disposing of three appeals, being RFA Nos. 2085, 2086 and 2087 of 1991 as they arise out of the same impugned award dated 17.9.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal and are being heard together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RFA No. 2085 of 1991. The facts required for the disposal of this appeal are that in pursuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act dated 26.6.1989 and 7.12.1989 respectively, the Haryana Government decided to acquire land measuring 26 kanals 7 marlas situated in Kasba Nilokheri, tehsil and district Karnal for the construction of tehsil building and residential quarters at Nilokheri. The land acquired was Chahi-Nehri. It has been alleged in the petition that the Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for Chahi-Nehri land. He also awarded Rs. 1,425/- for the tubewell and one kotha which was constructed in the acquired land. The Collector also granted an additional amount at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum with effect from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award on the market value as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The Collector also granted 30% solatium. The land owners, being dissatisfied with the award granted by the Collector, a reference under Section 18 of the Act was sought to be referred to the District Judge, Karnal. The Collector referred the matter to the District Judge, Karnal for determining the market value of the acquired land, who entrusted it to the Court of Additional District Judge for disposal. It has been alleged in the petition that appellant Sunder Dass is owner in possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 9 marlas, whereas the appellants in other connected appeals Parveen Kumar and Satish Kumar are owners in possession of land measuring 5 kanals 9 marlas. It has been alleged in the petition that the land which was to be acquired by the Government was being used for agricultural purposes but it was surrounded by various types of buildings, residential, industrial and commercial. They prayed for enhancement of compensation. Hence, this petition.
(3.) ON the other hand, reply was filed by the respondent-State controverting all the pleas taken up by the claimants in their appeals re-asserting that the value of the acquired land assessed by the Collector is correct and no further enhancement is required. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.;