RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of RFA No. 351 of 1987 preferred by the State of Haryana and the Cross Objections No. 55-CI of 1987 filed by the claimants against the same award of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the compensation has been assessed @ Rs. 32000/- per acre.
(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 06.04.1979 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') 6 kanals of land of the respondents situated in village Nakhroj Pur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, was acquired for public purpose, namely for the construction of Ladwa-Gazlana road to village Mahuvakheri. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.01.1981 determined the compensation @ Rs. 11504/- per acre in respect of Chahi land. Through another notification dated 19.08.1980 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 2 kanals 6 marlas of Chahi land of the respondents was acquired for the same purpose mentioned here-in-above and the Land Acquisition Collector vide his award of the same day i.e. 30.01.1981 determined the compensation @ Rs. 11500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the award under Section 11 of the Act, the respondents filed reference under Section 18 in respect of 6 kanals of land, which was acquired on 06.04.1979 and was registered as LAC Case No. 26/4 of 1986 and in respect of 2 kanals 6 marlas land, which was registered as LAC Case No. 27/4 of 1986. Since in both the cases, land of the same respondents was acquired for the same purpose and the award was also given on the same day, the learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra consolidated both the cases on 23.07.1986 and vide his award dated 19.09.1986 allowed both the cases assessing market value @ Rs. 32,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Ld. Addl. District Judge, both the State of Haryana and the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court in the aforesaid RFA and Cross Objections. Since both the cases are arising out of the same judgment dated 19.09.1986, therefore, by this common order, both the case are being disposed of together.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant in appeal has argued that the learned Courts below has erred in placing reliance upon post notification sale deed i.e. Ex.P1 dated 12.06.1980 and in this regard, she has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Kanshi Ram, Asa Ram and Piara v. Punjab State Electricity Board and other, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 690. She further submitted that the learned Court below has erred in awarding compensation under Section 23(1-A) awarding interest @12% per annum on the market value for the period beginning from the date of issue of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of taking of possession of the land or the award of the Collector whichever is earlier. In support of her contention, reliance has further been placed upon a decision of this Court rendered in Haryana Education Society v. State of Haryana, 2004(1) PLR 273. It was also contended that the learned Court below should have placed reliance on Ex.R2, which is sale deed dated 27.06.1977.;