Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Indra Devi vs The State Of Haryana on 20 August, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
RFA No. 279 of 1991 (O&M)
Smt. Indra Devi ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana ..... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowner has filed the present appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide Notification dated 19.6.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 64.23 acres of land situated in Village Pali, Hadbast No. 13, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for the development and utilisation thereof for shifting of stone crushers of Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the plain land @ ` 65,000/- per acre. The value of the land comprised in rectangle no. 103, khasra no. 4/2, 5/2, 6/min; rectangle no. 102, khasra no. 10/2; rectangle no. 213, khasra no. 32 was determined at ` 20,000/- per acre and price of land comprised in rectangle no. 114, killa no. 6 min was assessed at ` 30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowner filed objections. On reference, the learned court below upheld the compensation awarded by the Collector. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.
None has appeared for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the claim made by the appellant in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in RFA No. 708 of 1990- Krishan and others vs State of Haryana, decided on 27.9.2006, whereby the award of the court below was upheld and the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement was dismissed.
Since this court had upheld the award of the learned court below, prima facie, no case for enhancement is made out. However, as no one has appeared for the appellant, the present appeal is dismissed in default.
20.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge