M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to acquire land belonging to him and to pay compensation in respect thereof as the land has been utilized for construction of road. The total area utilized by the respondents is 7 Kanal 15 Marlas comprised in khasra Nos. 18(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(4-16), 16(6-8) and 17(8- 0) situated in village Barsan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It is the case of the petitioner that the land has been utilized in the year 1970 by constructing a road passing through his land to connect village Lakshi Bans with Yamuna Nagar Jathlana Road. It is further stated that the petitioner continues to be the owner of the land in accordance with the revenue record till the year 2003-04. Copies of the revenue record have been placed on the file as Annexures P-2 to Annexure P-8.
(2.) THE aforementioned averments made by the petitioner have not been disputed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who have filed their written statement. However, it has been asserted that the land of the petitioner was utilized a long time ago when the villagers themselves came forward with the request for construction of the road utilising their land without any payment of compensation of in respect of such land because by construction of road, the land price used to go up on either side of newly constructed road which would have been much more than the price the land acquired. It has also been projected that since the construction of road in the year 1970-71 the petitioner or his predecessor never raised any objection nor any one claimed any compensation till March 10th, 2008, when a legal notice was served. A reference to the Civil Suit filed by the grandfather of the petitioner being Civil Suit No. 52 of 1987 in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhri has also been made asserting that no compensation in the suit has been claimed in the aforementioned suit. It is appropriate to mention that the grand father of the petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration claiming that the trees of the land adjoining the road belong to them and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to claim any ownership right of the trees. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed. However, the first appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed with the finding that the ownership of the trees vest in the petitioner because trees were standing on the land belonging to the petitioner irrespective of the fact whether such trees were planted and maintained by the Forest Department. The plea of adverse possession raised by the respondent-State was negated by the appellate Court. A copy of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge has been placed on record as Annexure P-10. Against the aforementioned judgment the respondent-State has filed RSA No. 959 of 1998 which stands admitted by this Court. This matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.12.2008 when learned State counsel requested for short adjournment to seek instructions in the matter but to day at the time of hearing, Mr. M.L.Saggar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana has offered petitioner that for the area measuring 7 Kanal-15 Marla a sum of Rs.68284/- can be offered which includes the costs of the land at the rate prevalent in the year 1970, solatium and other charges. He has further pointed out that additional interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and higher rate of interest @ 15% over per years has also been given to the petitioner. Accordingly, a cheque for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 68284/- has been prepared for payment tot he petitioner in the Court.
(3.) MR . Ashok Khubbar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the offer made by the learned State counsel is not acceptable to him because in the absence of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation cannot be assessed. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has continued to be the owner in the revenue record and by adopting the method suggested by learned State counsel, the situation would not change. He further submits that in order to put an end to the controversy, there is only one course open to the respondents State and it has to issue notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the proprietory rights.;