- (1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the compensation equal to the other landowners whose land has been acquired by the same notification.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 5.3.1993 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 25.11.1993 under Section 6 of the Act acquired the land of the petitioners measuring 290 bigha 10 biswas for extension of New Grain Market at Kasba Karnal, Tehsil and District Karnal. The award was passed on 15.7.1994 determining the market value at Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre of the land acquired. The petitioners filed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court vide award dated 30.9.1998 (Annexure P-2) dismissed all the 42 claim petitions and upheld the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Against the award, Annexure P-2, the petitioners filed RFA No. 246 of 2000 for enhancement of compensation and this Court vide disposed of the said appeal in terms of the order dated 7.10.1999 passed in RFA No. 766 of 1999 whereby the said appeal was partly allowed and the claimants therein were held entitled to compensation @ Rs. 110/- per square yard. Thereafter, the similarly situated claimants whose land was acquired by the same acquisition proceedings filed LPA No. 303 of 2000 in RFA No. 768 of 1998 and also LPA No. 1365 of 2001 in RFA No. 170 of 1999 against the judgment dated 7.10.1999 in RFA No. 766 of 1999. LPA No. 303 of 2000 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 3.8.2005 (Annexure P-3) and the compensation of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 147.68 per square yard. The petitioners also filed LPA No. 154 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 6.2.2007 dismissed the said appeal in view of the judgment in Balbir Kaur v. Bhim Singh, 2005 139 PunLR 848 and the SLP filed against the said judgment also stands dismissed. The petitioners moved a representation dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure P-4) to respondent No.2 for grant of compensation equal to the other land owners whose land has been acquired by the same notification, but to no effect. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners for amount of compensation whereas the similarly situated persons have been awarded compensation of the land acquired. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in Samiyathal and others v. Spl. Tehsildar and others, 2015 2 RCR(Civ) 441.;