R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 (O&M) and Cross-objections No. 75-CI of 1990 Date of decision: 18.11.2008 State of Haryana .. Appellant v. Murlidhar (deceased) through LRs and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. The land owners have also filed cross objections seeking further enhancement of compensation. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 19.7.1978, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired the land in village Mujessar for development and utilization of the same as Sector 23, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 4.12.1979, determined the market value of land at Rs. 9,600/- per acre. However, Additional District Judge, Faridabad, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 29/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not in consonance with the evidence produced on record. The evidence, produced by the State, was in the form of copies of awards (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2), pertaining to the acquisition of land in village Gaumchi, which is quite close to the acquired land, where the value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 60/- per marla and Rs. 432/- per marla respectively. He further submitted that grant of additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is totally uncalled for because acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated 19.7.1978 issued R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 [2] under Section 4 of the Act. Even the award of the Collector was passed on 4.12.1979, i.e., before the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act came into force. Reliance was placed upon Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and another, (2003) 2 SCC 484. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below even required further increase by this court, considering the evidence produced by them on record. He submitted that in any case, there is no scope for reduction as the value has been assessed relying upon a judgment of this Court pertaining to the acquisition at the same time for the land forming part of the same village. As far as the issue regarding grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, he could not dispute that the same is covered against him vide judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority's case (supra). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as value of the land is concerned, in my considered opinion, fair assessment has been made by the learned court below relying upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1325 of 1983—Prem Nath v. State of Haryana, where for acquisition vide notification dated 1.6.1976 for the land pertaining to Village Mujessar, this Court assessed the value at Rs. 23.50 paise per square yard, vide judgment dated 16.12.1988. The acquisition in the present case was made vide notification dated 19.7.1978 and the land pertained to the same village, i.e., Mujessar. Considering the judgment in Prem Nath's case (supra) and granting the benefit of time gap in two notifications, the value of the acquired land in the present case was assessed at Rs. 29/- per square yard. As against this, reliance of learned counsel for the State was on the awards of the learned court below, pertaining to the acquisition of land of revenue estate of Village Gaumchi, though for Sector 23, Faridabad. Both these awards have rightly not been relied upon by the learned court below for two reasons, namely, that the acquired land in the present case formed part of the revenue estate of village Mujessar and secondly, the awards (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) were passed by the learned court below, which may have been subject-matter of further appeal before this court, whereas the judgment of Prem Nath's case (supra) was delivered by this court in which the issue under consideration was for determination of the value of the acquired land pertaining to the same village. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the submissions of either of the parties, as far as value of the land is concerned. R.F.A. No. 2086 of 1990 [3] Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross objections on that account are dismissed. With regard to grant of benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, it would be relevant to refer to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which are extracted below: 30. Transition provisions- (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,- (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the (House of the People) in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act.” Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority's case (supra) considered the issue in detail, wherein it was held that if the case of the land owner does not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30 (1) of the amending Act, he is not entitled to the benefits available under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. As is evident from the facts of the present case, the case of the land owners does not fall within either of the clauses as the acquisition of land and the award of the Collector is before the cut off date. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below to the extent it grants benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is concerned, is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.11.2008 mk