SURAJ BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 22.3.1990 Haryana Government Urban Estate Department on behalf of the State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for intending to acquire land measuring about 688.93 acres in the revenue estate of three different villages in District Gurgaon. This land was acquired for a public purpose namely, development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial, institutional and maintenance of open space area in District Gurgaon in the new township proposed to be made by the said authority. Section 6 notification under this Act in furtherance thereto was issued on 19.3.1991. Vide these notifications the area intended to be acquired and the area for which Section 6 notification was issued is as under :-

(2.) OUT of the area of 688.93 acres in fact only an area of 580.73 acres was made subject-matter of acquisition and the Land Acquisition Collector passed his award only in relation to that land. Area measuring about 108.20 acres thus, did not remain part of the requisition proceedings before the Collector. Vide Award No. 7 of 1992-93 dated 16.3.1993 the learned Land Acquisition Collector awarded the following amount of compensation to the claimants for acquisition of their respective lands :-

(3.) BEING dis-satisfied by the extent of compensation awarded to the owners, the claimants preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. In all 161 references were forwarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, for determination to the learned District Judge/Additional District, Judge, Gurgaon. All these references were disposed of by the learned Judges vide 32 different judgments but awarding a uniform rate of compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,82,600/- per acre of Rs. 265/- per square yard. These judgments passed by the learned District Judge/Additional District, Judge led to filing of the present 281 regular first appeals. State of Haryana challenged the impugned judgments on the ground that excessive compensation had been awarded to the claimants and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector was liable to be restored while claimants prayed in their appeals for further enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them by the learned Judge.