Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana Through Land ... vs Prithi Pal Singh S/O S. Nidhan Singh And ... on 4 May, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.973 of 1992 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.973 of 1992
Date of Decision.04.05.2013
State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate,
Haryana, Faridabad .....Appellant
Versus
Prithi Pal Singh s/o S. Nidhan Singh and another .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate
for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal is at the instance of the State challenging the compensation assessed for acquisition of property at village Daultabad as being excessive. The total extent of property was 29 acres and the notification under Section 4 was dated 17.12.1981. Before the Reference Court the only document relied on by the land owners was an award of compensation passed in relation to acquisition made at Faridabad @ Rs.19 per square yard. The Reference Court discarded this document as being irrelevant for the valuation of the property at Faridabad could not have afforded any guidance for determination of value of property at Daultabad.
2. The State relied on Ex.R1 which was for 11 kanals and 19 marlas of land for ` 10,000/- that worked out to ` 6694/- per acre. This valuation was in relation to an agricultural land and was far below even from ` 64,000/- per acre awarded by the Collector. The Court did not find RFA No.973 of 1992 -2- Ex.R1 to be appropriate for transaction relating to agricultural property and considering the fact that the property had been acquired only for the purpose of establishing residential colony, it found that the location of the property was such that the Government itself had earmarked it for housing and the valuation could be assessed for a non-agricultural purpose. Finding that the Collector had assessed the compensation at ` 64,000/- per acre, the Reference Court made an enhancement to ` 1,00,000/- per acre. The notification is of the year 1981 and I do not find that there is any scope for modifying this compensation particularly in view of the fact that the land owners have secured only a marginal benefit and it need not be upset at the instance of the State at this distance of time.
3. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 04, 2013 Pankaj*