Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Amar Singh And Another on 1 May, 2012
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A No. 1932 of 2011 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A No. 1932 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 1.5.2012
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs
Amar Singh and another .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajay Gulati, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J.
State of Haryana has filed the present appeal seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 18.8.2005, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), State of Haryana sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of village Daba, Hadbast No. 8, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, for construction of BML Hansi Branch-Bhutana Branch Multi Purpose Link Channel from RD 0-91000 off taking from RD No. 340300-L Bhakra main line. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 13.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, "the Collector") vide award dated 5.1.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 7,50,000/- per acre. Besides it, a sum of ` 50,000/- was awarded on account of severance. It is this award which is impugned by the State before this court.
R. F. A No. 1932 of 2011 (2)Learned counsel for the State very fairly conceded that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in RFA No. 1714 of 2009 State of Haryana and another vs Pala Ram and others, decided on 1.5.2012, whereby the award of the learned court below was upheld.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Pala Ram's case (supra), the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, civil misc. applications are also dismissed.
1.5.2012 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge