H.S.BEDI, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the claimants in a land acquisition matter. It arises out of the following facts :-
(2.) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the "Act") for acquisition of 153 kanals 18 marlas land corresponding to 19.24 acres of land was issued by the State of Haryana on 18-02-1980. The acquisition pertained to the land of village Darra Kalan situated within the municipal area of Kurukshetra. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated 25-08-1982 awarded Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin qualities of land and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Banjar Jadid land. Twelve references under Section 18 of the Act were thereafter made by the claimants before the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, who vide his award dated 30-09-1985 enhanced the compensation uniformally to Rs. 1,13,250/- per acre corresponding to Rs. 23.40 per square yard. For arriving at this conclusion, the Addl. District Judge relied upon the award of the District Judge, Kurukshetra, Exh.P-15, dated 30-07-1982 as a base price and as that acquisition aforesaid was made about seven years prior to the present acquisition, awarded an increase of 50% on the said price. The claimants still dis-satisfied with the compensation filed twenty two first appeals in this Court, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 03-11-1988 by observing that the award of the Addl. District Judge was absolutely fair and correct and that the reliance on Exh.P-15 was fully justified. Some of the claimants other than the present appellants still aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, preferred L.P.A. Nos. 1513 and 2232 of 1989 and 516 of 1990, which were dismissed by a Division Bench on 07-01-1999 with the observation that the compensation granted by taking Ex.P-15 as a base was in order and no increase above 50% of the base price fixed vide Exh.P-15 was called for. It appears that, for certain reasons, the present appeal could not be heard and disposed of by the L.P.A. Bench on 07-01-1999. While this appeal was pending, the claimants-appellants filed Civil Misc. No. 1013 of 1990 for additional evidence pointing out that a learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 14-03-1990 passed in R.F.A. No. 7 of 1982 had enhanced the compensation with respect to the acquisition covered by Exh.P-15 from Rs. 15.59 to Rs. 37/- per square yard and that the benefits must, therefore, flow to the present appellants as well. Notice of this application was issued on 11-09-1990 and it was ordered to be heard alongwith the main case.
(3.) ON these facts, Mr. M.L. Sarin, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants has argued that as the Addl. District Judge, the learned Single Judge and the L.P.A. Bench had relied upon Exh.P-15 for determining the compensation in the present acquisition, it was appropriate and just that the compensation granted by Exh.P-15 having been increased in R.F.A. No. 7 of 1982 by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 15.59 to Rs. 37/- per square yard, the latter amount should be made the base for determining the compensation payable to the claimants. He has pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that connected L.P.As. had been dismissed, the present appeal was to be decided on the basis of the evidence that was before the Court and the dismissal of the earlier L.P.As. would not effect the merits of the present appeal because admittedly the judgment in R.F.A. No. 7 of 1982 had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the time of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeals on 07-01-1999. For this argument, he has placed reliance on M/s. Raj Dhani Land and Finance (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) R.R.R. 87 : 1994(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 431 and Birinder Singh and Ors. v. The State of Haryana, 1990(2) R.R.R. 47 : 1990 All India Land Acquisition and Compensation Cases 308. He has also urged that notwithstanding the above facts, it was sonly appropriate that in a land acquisition matter where the land was taken away by the State with no option to the land owners to ask for anything beyond fair compensation, a procedure which was equitable to the landowners should be adopted. In this connection, he has placed reliance on Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by LRs. and others, (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 272.;