Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tek Chand And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 4 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)112PLR420
Author: S.C. Datta
Bench: S.C. Datta
JUDGMENT S.C. Datta, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 546 to 549, 504, 625, 626, 659, 660, 1454, 1552, 1553, 1648, 1649, 1905, 1936 and 1937, all of the year 1989 and 418 and 1190 both of the year 1990.
2. Vide Notification No. LAC-81/NTLA/2515 dated July 6, 1981, issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, an area measuring 223.87 Acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Sarhaul, district Gurgaon, was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana for the purpose of development and utilisation of land for industrial purposes under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. This notification was followed by an other Notification Under Section 6 of the Act dated June 25, 1982 whereby 177.80 acres of land was acquired Lateron, the rest of the area measuring 165.04 Acres was also acquired and award regarding compensation was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana, Faridabad. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the appellants moved application Under Section 18 of the Act for making reference to the concerned District Judge for enhancement of compensation. The Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 23.50 ps. per Sq. Yd. Still dissatisfied, the appellants filed Regular Fist Appeals for enhancement of compensation, which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge. However, the said appeals were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on September 19, 1988. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed the present Letters Patent Appeals.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gulzari Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana,, R.F.A. No. 818 of 1986 judgment delivered on November 24, 1988, allowed compensation @ Rs. 52.50 P. per square yard taking into consideration the appreciation @ Rs. 5/- per annum per square yard. He submits that the land involved in the said judgment pertains to the same Notification as in the present case. So he contended that there should not be any reason for adopting a different norm in the matter of assessment of compensation in respect of the land involved in the present appeals. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Judge in Gulzari Lal's case (supra). It appears that the learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6089 of 1983 which was decided on August 1, 1983. The Supreme Court awarded compensation after taking into consideration appreciation in market value @ Rs. 5/- per annum per square yard. It is, of course, true that in Gulzari Lal's case (supra) the assessment of compensation was done in respect of land in village Dundahera. In the present case, the land is situated in village Sar-haul, District Gurgaon. It is admitted that the villages Dundahera, Sarhaul and Shahpur are adjacent villages and they stand alongside Delhi-Gurgaon-Alwar National Highway. They are situated on the border of Delhi and have a great potential value for being utilised for industrial purposes. In fact, the said lands were acquired by single Notification for the purposes of development and utilisation of land for industrial purposes under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to another judgment delivered by a Single Judge of this Court in Ranbir Singh and Ors., v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 103 of 1988 wherein the assessment was arrived at after the parties agreed before the Court to the effect that the subject matter of that set of appeals was squarely covered by the earlier judgment of this Court in Gulzari Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana (supra). Accordingly, the learned counsel contended that the State having once conceded that the decision in Gulzari Lal's case (supra) applied squarely to that case, cannot now turn back and say that the decision of Gulzari Lal's case is not applicable. He argued that the decision arrived at in that appeal would operate as res judicata and as such binding upon the State. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana who also appeared in Ranbir Singh's case (supra) submitted that the concession said to have been given in that appeal was perhaps on the misreading of the ratio of decision in Gulzari Lal's case (supra). He strenuously urged that there could be no question of res judicata inasmuch as the finding was not arrived at after definite issues were raised, framed and decided. According to him, the learned Single Judge simply acted on the basis of concession given by the lawyer for the State in of respect of that appeal only and as such it cannot bind the State for all times to come.
5. Leaving aside the technicalities of the matter, we propose to determine the compensation for the land acquired by this Notification. As noticed earlier, the villages Dundahera, Sarhaul and Shahpur are contiguous and they lie along side Delhi-Gurgaon-Alwar National Highway. The land in those villages were acquired by Notification dated July 6, 1981, and the purpose of acquisition was development and utilisation of land for industrial purposes under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The proximity of those villages to Delhi ha* added importance to these areas. These areas have immense potential and value and in fact many large and medium scale industries have come up in this locality. Anyway the learned Single Judge of this Court in Gulzari Lal's case (supra) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in a case which we have already noticed and arrived at the compensation after allowing appreciation of the market value of land @ Rs. 5/- per annum per Sq. yard. The said decision of the learned Single Judge was followed by another Single Judge of this Court in R.F.A. No. 779 of 1990 decided on May 1, 1991. In our view there cannot be any reason for adopting different norms at different times in the matter of assessment of compensation in respect of lands acquired out of the one and the same Notification and especially in respect of the lands lying adjacent to each other. In our view, it would be just, fair and equitable if the mode of assessment as was done in Gulzari Lal's case (supra) is adopted in this case. The view, which we are adopting is reasonable and would land consistency. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the assessment of the compensation should be done @ Rs. 52.50 P. per Square yard.
6. In this view of the matter, we think that the judgment of the first appellant Court cannot be sustained. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and assess the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 52.50 p. per square yard. The Appellants will also be entitled to get all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act on the enhanced amount of compensation. They would also be entitled to proportionate costs.