Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Dia vs The State Of Haryana on 20 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)108PLR298
Author: S.P. Kurdukar
Bench: S.P. Kurdukar
JUDGMENT S.P. Kurdukar, C.J.
1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 597-of 1993 and 1742 of 1989 can be disposed of by this common judgment since they arise out of common notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Both these appeals are preferred by the appellants claimants.
2. The State of Haryana vide Notification dated August 14, 1973 sought to acquire a plot of land measuring 16.72 acres for the purpose of construction of water works at Murthal. Then on July 8, 1974 Section 6 declaration was made. Respective claimants preferred their objections-cum-claim petitions before the Land Acquisition Collector, who, after hearing the parties made an award dated January 10, 1975, awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,400/- per acre. The claimants being not satisfied with the said award sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. The Additional District Judge, Sonepat, who heard the reference, vide his judgment and award dated 3.9.1979 allowed the references partly and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 7/- per square yard.
4. The State of Haryana being aggrieved by the judgment made by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, preferred RFA No. 230 of 1980. The claimants also preferred cross objections. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties by his judgment and award dated January 7, 1993 dismissed the State appeal, but however partly allowed the cross objections filed by the claimants and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment and award made by the learned Single Judge, the claimants have preferred LPA No. 597 of 1993.
5. Coming to the facts of LPA No. 1742 of 1989 it may be stated that the award is common under which the appellants were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,400/- per acre. The appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was heard by the Additional District Judge, who by his judgment dated May 20, 1982 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. yard. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the claimants preferred RFA No. 1051 of 1982. The learned Single Judge, vide his judgment and award dated May 8, 1989 allowed the appeal of the claimants-appellants and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7/- per sq. yard. Again dissatisfied with the said judgment and award made by the learned Single Judge, the appellants-claimants have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal in this Court
6. Coming to LPA No. 597 of 1993, Mr. K.S. Saini, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants, urged that the claimants' claim at the rate of Rs.12/-per sq. yard ought to have been accepted the decreed. The contention of Mr. Saini is that the acquired land has got building potentiality and the lands in surrounding areas are sold at much higher prices. He, therefore, urged that since the land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of water works, it ought to have been presumed that it has got building potentiality. The Counsel, therefore, urged that the claimants-appellants be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/-per sq. yard.
7. On our query to the learned Counsel to point out sale instances to justify higher rate of compensation as claimed in the present appeal, but he was, however, unable to point out any material on record to justify the higher rate of compensation. The learned Single Judge had gone through the relevant material on record and Mr. Saini was unable to point out any error in the aforesaid judgment. There is, therefore, no substance in LPA No. 597 of 1993 which deserves to be dismissed.
8. As regards LPA No. 1742 of I989 which arises out of RFA No. 1051 of 1982, the learned Counsel urged that the rate awarded in RFA No. 230 of I980 be accepted and at the same rate the claimants-appellants be paid compensation. Mr. Saini urged that the lands covered by these two appeals were sought to be acquired under the same notification and they are situated adjacent to each other. There is no reason, whatsoever, to deny the compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard which has been granted to the appellants in LPA No. 597 of 1993.
9. Mr. Jagdev Sharma, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, urged that the lands covered by LPA No. 597 of 1993 have got better advantages since they are abutting on the road. He, therefore, sought to justify the award made by the learned Single Judge. The learned Counsel further urged that the learned Single Judge has rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard to the claimants-appellants in LPA No. 597 of 1993. The lands covered by LPA No. 1742 of 1989 are at a far off distance from the road and, therefore, the claimants-appellants are not entitled to get. Compensation at the same rate at which it has been awarded to the appellants in LPA No. 597 of 1993.
10. At the outset, it may be stated that the appellants in LPA No. 1742 of 1989 should have filed an application for additional evidence to bring on record the judgment and award made by the learned Single Judge but, however, since both these appeals were heard together, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to read the judgment and award made by the learned Single Judge in LPA No. 597 of 1993. The said judgment is accordingly read in LPA No. 1742 of 1989.
11. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we are of the opinion that the claimants-appellants in LPA No. 1742 of 1989 cannot be denied the benefit of the judgment and award rendered in LPA No. 597 of 1993. The lands which are subject matter of both these appeals were acquired under the same proceedings and under the same notification and for the same purpose. It is a block of various lands, which has been acquired for construction of water works. Both these lands are having identical and similar advantages. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the claimants-appellants in LPA No.. 1742 of 1989 are entitled to receive compensation in respect of their lands at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard. LPA No. 1742 of 1989 is allowed to that extent and respondents are directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard to the claimants-appellants. Consequently, the claimants-appellants would also be entitled for interest as well as solatium in accordance with law on the additional amount which they would be getting under this judgment.
12. In the result, we pass the following orders. LPA No. 1742 of 1989 is partly allowed with costs as indicated above. LPA No. 597 of 1993 to stand dismissed with no order as to costs.