SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Haryana by issuance of Notification dated 43. 1983 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') sought to acquire land measuring 133. 68 acres for development and utilization for residential and commercial area, in Sector 8 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act 1977 in the area of village Patti Mehar Hadbast No. 58 and Sondha Hadbast No. 1-14, Tehsil and District Ambala. The land Acquisition Collector by his Award dated 23. 2. 1988 granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs. 32,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 16,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land respectively. The landowner-claimants did not feel satisfied with the compensation amount and filed references under Section 18 of the Act and Shri V. P. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge by his Award dated 30th October, 1992 has assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. The main judgment has been given in Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, In the subsequent paragraphs wherever this Court wants to refer to the Award pertaining to the acquisition of land measuring 133. 68 acres, the title of the case Bhagwan Dass would be referred to.

(2.) THE landowners feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid Award have filed R. F. A. Nos. 571 to 573, 575 to 587, 589, 590, 615 to 618, 684, 798 to 810, 925, 943, 959, 1162 to 1164, 1050, 1051, 1285 to 1297, 1369, 1370, 1564 to 1568, 1597 to 1603,. 1607, 1611 to 1637, 1972 to 2004, 2222, 2223, 2304, 2305, 2338, 2688 to 2691, 2694 to 2696 of 1993. They have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation whereas the State of Haryana has filed R. F. A. Nos. 1650 to 1819 of 1933 praying for reduction in the amount of compensation.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, the counsel for the parties submitted that since the land in both the set of cases has been acquired by issuance of two notifications dated 43. 1983 and 19. 4. 1983 i. e. within the close proximity of time and since in one set of cases land has been acquired for development and utilisation for 'road' in village Patti Mehar and in the other set of cases for development and utilisation of the acquired land for residential and commercial area in Sector 8 in Patti Mehar, this Court dispose of all the appeals by one common judgment Some of the evidence led by the parties is also common. Consequently, all the appeals are/being disposed of together by this judgment. Although, both the set of cases are being disposed of together by a common judgment, yet I have thought it appropriate to refer to the facts of the cases separately in order to have a clear out picture of the entire evidence. In the first instance, I propose to discuss the facts of the case leading to the Award given in Satish Sethi's case.