Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Yash Kumar Wadhawan on 9 January, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Misc. No. 10353/CI of 2008 and
R. F. A No. 5005 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : 9.1.2009
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs
Yash Kumar Wadhawan .... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J.
The State has approached this court through the present appeal for reduction in the compensation.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 8.5.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land in Village Unchagaon, District Faridabad, for public purpose namely for development and utilisation of land as institutional, residential and commercial for Sector-61, Faridabad. The learned Land Acquisition Collector (for short, "the Collector"), assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. The learned Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, enhanced the compensation @ of Rs. 450/- per square yard, relying on judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 2501 of 2001- Ved Pal and others vs State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.5.2006.
Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants very fairly submits that the learned court below has assessed the compensation payable to the landowners on account of acquisition of land relying upon judgment of this court in Ved Pal's case (supra). As the compensation has been assessed by the learned Reference Court relying upon a judgment of this court, I do not find any merit in the present appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed.
As the appeal itself is without any merit, I do not find any reason to condone the delay of 220 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.
9.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge