SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1056181 |
Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
Decided On | May-02-2013 |
Appellant | Rattan Singh (Deceased Through His Lrs) and Another. |
Respondent | State of Haryana Through the Land Acquisition Collector Jind. |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1552 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision:02.05.2013 Rattan Singh (deceased, through his LRs.and another...Appellants versus State of Haryana through the Land Acquisition Collector, Jind....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana.
---- K.Kannan, J.
(Oral) 1.
The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for the property acquired, the details of such acquisition are brought out hereunder:- Date of notification under Sectio”
15. 09.1989/under Section 6-19.12.1989 Village Danoda Kalan Total extent acquired 28K 1 M Purpose of acquisition Construction of 33 KV Sub Station Collector's award 32,000/- per acre for Nehri, 22,000/- per acre for barani Reference Court dismissed Sale instances Date Extent Consideration Value per acre By claimants P2 11.05.1980 57K 3 M 1,78,435 24,957 By State R1 24.07.1987 8K 17,000 RFA No.1552 of 1992 (O&M) -2- Previous award Award of District Village Notification under Award of Court or High Section 4 compensation Court per acre Ex.P8 Danoda 04.07.1985 40,000/-per acre The Reference Court, while considering the documents, chose to rely on Ex.P8 which was the award for acquisition of property in the same village after the notification issued 4 years prior to Section 4 notification.
The counsel for the State points out that the award deals with the acquisition for the downtrodden people from several villages and the Reference Court has committed a mistake in referring to the valuation determining for some other village and taking the same to be already lower than what was assessed by the Collector.
The counsel states that as regards the acquisition of the property in the Danoda village which is spelt out in Ex.P8 the valuation made was ` 40,000/- per acre.
The appellants' counsel would argue that the said property was farther the village, while his own property was abutting the main road.
The counsel seeks for permission to refer to the copy of the aks-sajra produced in appeal to show the location of the property as abutting the main way.”
2. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that all the documents relied on by the landowners actually actually gave out valuation less than the value already determined by the Collector and there is no scope for a further enhancement.
The counsel also argues that there is nothing brought out on record to show that the RFA No.1552 of 1992 (O&M) -3- property dealt with under P8 was anywhere proximate to the property acquired in the instant notification and that it is less or equally valuable other than the property acquired.”
3. The location of the property at the main road has been spoken to by the witnesses before the court below.
The valuation of such property in a village cannot be any less than any property interior of the village.
The learned counsel is pleading only a parity in treatment and the value as provided under P8.
The notification dealt with under P8 was at least 4 years earlier.
The value of the property acquired subsequently cannot be less than the value already determined.
I, therefore, take the value as spelt out under P8 as also the basis in the manner sought for by the landowners and assess the compensation at ` 40,000/- per acre for nehri.
The Collector has maintained a distinct category for the barani and the counsel for the State submits that the same distinction must be maintained.
I accede to the plea and make a proportionate reduction and assess the compensation for barani at ` 29,350/-.
The compensation shall stand modified in the manner referred to above with all statutory benefits and the appeal is allowed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02 05.2013 sanjeev