RFA No. 941 of 1991 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 941 of 1991 (O&M) and Cross objection No.105-CI of 1991 Date of Decision: 20.05.2011 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Umrao Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the land-owners/cross-objectors. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. State has filed the appeal challenging the award of the learned court below dated 30.10.1990, enhancing the amount of compensation for acquisition of land. The landowners have filed cross-objections challenging the finding recorded by the learned court below whereby they have not been held to be owners of land, hence, not entitled to payment of compensation. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State Government vide notification dated 29.03.1979, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire the land measuring 37.746 acres situated in village Raliyawas, Tehsil and District Rewari for construction of Masani Barrage. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.03.1979. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 10,700/- per acre for chahi, ` 7,490/- per acre for barani, ` 6,420/- per acre for bhur and ` 4,280/- per acre for banjar kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation @ ` RFA No. 941 of 1991 2 13,200/- per acre for bhur and ` 10,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29.3.1979. The compensation has been assessed by the learned court below referring to the judgment of this court in RFA No. 2569 of 1987 titled as Bhiwa and others vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 13.07.1989 pertaining to acquisition of land of neighbuoring village, which was acquired for the same purpose i.e. for construction of Masani Barrage. Considering the fact that the acquisition is more than 30 years back, the area mentioned in the impugned award is 37.746 acres, there is nothing on record to show whether the State filed any other appeal as apparently entire land could not owned by only one person, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award of the learned court below, at this stage. The appeal filed by the State is dismissed. As far as cross-objections filed by the landowners are concerned, those were dismissed by the court below on the ground that reference before the Court was only under Section 18 of the Act. The claim of the landowners in the present case is that they being Dholidar were entitled to receive compensation. Ownership of the land has been recorded in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Objections under Section 30 of the Act seeking apportionment of compensation were not filed. Gram Panchayat, which has been recorded owner of the land, is not even a party in the proceedings before the learned court below. Learned counsel for the cross- objectors submitted that Gram Panchayat, which has been recorded as owner of the land having raised no objection, they have already been disbursed substantial amount of compensation. Be that as it may, whatever has already been disbursed to the cross-objectors, the same shall be final. Cross-objections are also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 20.05.2011 sharmila