Punjab-Haryana High Court
E. H. Jonathan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 March, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A. No. 4317 of 2001 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 11.3.2010
1. R. F. A. No. 4317 of 2001 (O&M)
E. H. Jonathan ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
2. R. F. A. No. 4436 of 2001 (O&M) Lal Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
3. R. F. A. No. 4437 of 2001 (O&M) Smt. Bhagwati Devi and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
4. R. F. A. No. 4443 of 2001 (O&M) Ran Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
5. R. F. A. No. 4446 of 2001 (O&M) Chander Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
6. R. F. A. No. 5255 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs D. K. Sharma and others ..... Respondents
7. R. F. A. No. 5262 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Lekh Ram and others ..... Respondents
8. R. F. A. No. 5263 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Smt. Raj Rani and others ..... Respondents R. F. A. No. 4317 of 2001 2
9. R. F. A. No. 5264 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Sita Ram Anand and another ..... Respondents
10. R. F. A. No. 5265 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Vijay Laxmi Sharma and others ..... Respondents
11. R. F. A. No. 5275 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Smt. Seeta Rani and others ..... Respondents
12. R. F. A. No. 5285 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Smt. Kalawati and others ..... Respondents
13. R. F. A. No. 5286 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Ganga Parshad and others ..... Respondents
14. R. F. A. No. 5289 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Raj Krishan and others ..... Respondents
15. R. F. A. No. 5298 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs K. N. Ghosh and others ..... Respondents
16. R. F. A. No. 5302 of 2001 (O&M) H. S. I. D. C. .... Appellant vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi and others ..... Respondents R. F. A. No. 4317 of 2001 3
17. R. F. A. No. 5304 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Kali Charan and others ..... Respondents
18. R. F. A. No. 5308 of 2001 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Purna Nand Parkash and others ..... Respondents
19. R. F. A. No. 5309 of 2001 (O&M) H. S. I. D. C. .... Appellant vs Sanjeev Kumar and others ..... Respondents
20. R. F. A. No. 232 of 2002 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited .... Appellant vs Ravi Tirpathi and others ..... Respondents
21. R. F. A. No. 3244 of 2002 (O&M) Parmeshwari and others ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
22. R. F. A. No. 3454 of 2002 (O&M) Smt. Rajwati and another ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents 23. R. F. A. No. 69 of 2003 (O&M) Satinder Sharma ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
24. R. F. A. No. 2901 of 2003 (O&M) Dhani Ram and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
25. R. F. A. No. 2902 of 2003 (O&M) Shmt. Ram Moorti and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents R. F. A. No. 4317 of 2001 4
26. R. F. A. No. 3113 of 2003 (O&M) Hari Chand and others ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
27. R. F. A. No. 1289 of 2004 (O&M) Bijender and another ..... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Sarpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. S. S. Narula, Advocate, Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the landowners, Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. H. S. Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for HSIDC.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals, as the same arise out of common acquisition.
The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited is seeking reduction in the compensation.
The facts have been extracted from RFA. No. 4317 of 2001. Briefly, the facts are that land situated in Village Kundli, District Sonepat was acquired vide notifications dated 19.6.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for development and utilisation of land as Industrial Estate. The Land Acquisition Collector gave award of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri, Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for barani/roshli, Rs. 80,000/- per acre for banjar kinds of land and Rs. 150/- per square yard for plots. The land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for chahi/nehri, Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre for barani, Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for banjar quadeem and Rs. 200/- per square yard for plots. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals.
R. F. A. No. 4317 of 2001 5Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the claim in the present set of appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this court in RFA No. 4658 of 2001 Vijay Jyoti Housing Private Limited vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.7.2009 whereby the compensation for the acquired land was assessed @ 79/- per square yard.
Learned counsels appearing for the State and HSIDC did not dispute the aforesaid factual position.
No other argument was raised by either of the parties. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Vijay Jyoti Housing Private Limited's case (supra), all the appeals are disposed of in the same terms.
11.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge