Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mauji Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 June, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2629 of 1999 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 2629 of 1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 2.6.2011
Mauji Ram and others .... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Rahut Vats, Advocate, for the landowners.
Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
RAJESH BINDAL, J This order will dispose of RFA Nos. 2629 of 1999 and 2892 of 2005, arising out of common acquisition.
The landowners have filed appeals seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 17.5.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') the State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estate of villages Kabirpur, Hadbast No. 79, and Fazilpur Hadbast No. 81, Tehsil and District Sonepat for development and utilisation thereof as residential and commercial area in Sector-12, Sonepat. The same was followed by notification dated 16.5.1991 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of land of different villages at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land of different villages at different rates. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners are in appeal before this Court.
R.F.A. No. 2629 of 1999 -2-Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals are squarely covered by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 2010- Udho Dass vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.4.2010, whereby the compensation for the acquired land was enhanced to ` 225/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid factual position.
Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Udho Dass's case (supra), the appeals are disposed of in the same terms.
2.6.2011. (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge