Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Vinod Kumar And Another on 15 May, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Cross -objection No. 111/CI of 2006
in RFA No. 1598 of 2006
State of Haryana and another ... Appellant
vs
Vinod Kumar and another .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the objectors/respondents.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The landowners have approached this court by filing the cross- objections for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that notification dated 30.10.1992, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), was issued for acquisition of 184.56 acres of land in the revenue estate of Narnaul, Hadbast No. 159, for setting up Mini Urban Estates Sector 1, Narnaul. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), assessed the market value at Rs. 1,58,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 52,000/- per acre for barani land and Rs. 4,17,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for barani land, Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land, Rs. 300/- per square yard for the land abutting Narnaul- Mahendergarh Road upto 200 feet, Rs. 210/- per square yard for the land abutting Narnaul-Singhana Road upto 200 feet, and Rs. 125/- per square yard for the land abutting Moti Nagar and Shiv Colony from the boundary of the acquired land upto 500 feet.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the main appeal was disposed of vide order dated 17.3.2009 in terms of detailed judgment in RFA No. 788 of 2006 - Kirpal Singh vs Government of Haryana and others, whereby the compensation payable to the landowners was further enhanced. However, inadvertently the cross-objections filed by the landowners in the present appeal remained pending.
Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned in Kirpal Singh's case (supra), the cross-objections filed by the respondents are also disposed of in the same terms.
15.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge