Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Shanti And Ors. vs State Of Haryana Through Collector And ... on 8 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1995)109PLR15
JUDGMENT
M.S. Liberhan, Act. C. J.
1. Our this judgement will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 19, 164,165, 179, 180, 181,182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209 and 654 of 1994 together as they relate to the same acquisition proceedings.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below have erred in dividing the acquired land in two belts with regard to payment of compensation. The facts and circumstances of the case in hand do not call for any belting of the acquired land for assessment of the market value, The land cannot be divided into belts solely on the ground that it is slightly away from the Highway. There cannot be blocks while granting compensation. It is further contended that vide three notifications land relating to three different villages was acquired for extension of Hissar Cantonment. This court while assessing the market value of the land relating to two other villages vide its judgment in LPA No. 211 of 1991 decided on 5th January, 1994 came to the conclusion after affirming the finding of learned Single Judge assessing the market value of the acquired land in one block that:
"the belting system, however, can be useful only when the depth and remoteness of the acquired land indicate possible variations in pries".
3. It was further averred that one big chunk of the land has been acquired for public purpose of the extension of the cantonment on the national highway No. 10 and Hissar bye pass road including part of it abutting the canal which passes between the acquired land. It was further observed that keeping in view the fact that the entire land has been acquired for the purpose of extending the existing cantonment and the same had the potential of growing into an industrial belt and also keeping in view its size and shape it was assessed as one block.
4. We fail to comprehend the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that solely the land being not within the municipal limit, it should have been assessed in blocks. We fail to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that in other cases it should be assumed that the land opening on the national Highway would be costlier to such an extent that the back area cannot be treated as one chunk. There is no dispute that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the market value can be assessed by adhering to the belting system.
5. In this case undisputed facts to the effect that the land was acquired for the extension of Hissar cantonment, on one side school and Industrial area on the other side are developed, land was acquired vide notification of the same date for the same purpose adjoining to the area in dispute having been assessed as one block, the existence of School and the factories situated well within the' disputed acquired land and the very fact that it is for the extension of cantonment would lead to an inference that the land in dispute has the potentiality of being an Industrial or residential and has also concomitants of urbanised property. The observations made by the learned Single Judge that the land acquired was already being used for Industrial purpose and the land slightly away from the highway could also be used for the purpose merely by providing approach road by itself shows that the land cannot be sub-divided into blocks for assessing its market value. We find no ground to differ with the view taken in LPA No. 211 of 1991 decided on 5th January, 1994 (Reported as Chander Parkash v. The State of Haryana, (1994-2) 107 P.L.R. 353 Editor) that the land acquired for the extension of Hissar Cantonment and involved in the said LPA being in continuity with the land in dispute for the same object and purpose can be treated differently, particularly when there is nothing on the record to differentiate. As a natural corollary the land under acquisition cannot be divided into blocks and treated differently in regard to payment of compensation. Resultantly, we are of the considered view that the market value of the acquired land has to be assessed in one block.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered view that the award of the learned Single Judge is liable to be modified only to the extent that the acquired land should be treated as one block in regard to payment of compensation and the same rate would be the market value of the acquired land.
7. Nothing worth-noticing was pointed out to differ with the assessment of the market value of the land in the dispute at the rate of Rs. 1,04,642/- which figure was round up to Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre in the judgement cited.
9. In view of the observations made above, we award Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The appellants shall also be entitled to have solatium, interest, and additional compensation as per the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. There will be no order as to costs.