R. F. A No. 1116 of 1989 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 3.3.2010 1. R. F. A No. 1116 of 1989 (O&M) Ved Parkash and another ..... Appellants vs The State of Haryana ..... Respondent 2. R. F. A No. 1261 of 1989 (O&M) Ramji Lal ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants in RFA No. 1116 of 1989 Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, for the appellant in RFA No. 1261 of 1989. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals filed by the landowners, as the same arise out of the common award of the court below. The appellants are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 1116 of 1989. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 19.7.1978 issued under Section 4 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), acquired land situated in Village Gonchhi, Hadbast No. 26, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for construction of maintenance colony of Electricity Board in Sector-23, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) vide award dated 14.12.1979 assessed Rs. 60/- per marla as compensation. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the claimant filed objections. On reference to the court below, the learned Additional District Judge, while relying upon earlier award, Ex. P1, whereby value of the land in Village Gonchhi acquired vide notification dated 16.11.1977 was determined @ Rs. 432/- per marla, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the same rate. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of R. F. A No. 1116 of 1989 -2- land is not just and fair considering the time gap between the acquisition the award of which was relied upon and the acquisition of land in the present case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any independent evidence on record, the appellants should not be granted any further increase, rather, even that amount deserves to be reduced. It was further fairly submitted that the award relied upon by the learned court below, pertaining to acquisition carried out in the vicinity vide notification dated 16.11.1977, was subject matter of appeal before this court in RFA No. 828 of 1988 – State of Haryana vs Paras Ram decided on 23.8.2006, wherein the compensation was further enhanced to Rs. 80,000/- per acre. It was further submitted that the appellants are not entitled to any amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Act and award to that extent deserves to be set aside considering the fact that award of the Collector in the present case is dated 14.12.1979. Reliance was placed on Mehtab Kaur and others vs The State of Punjab and others (2004-2) 137 PLR 649. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as compensation assessed by the learned court below on account of acquisition of land is concerned, the landowners had only produced two sale-deeds, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3, both dated 28.8.1981. The court below had rightly not considered the same, having been executed after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The landowners had also produced award, Ex. P1, dated 11.3.1988 whereby value of the land acquired in the same village vide notification dated 16.11.1977, had been determined @ Rs. 432/- per marla. This was relied upon by the court below while assessing the compensation in the present set of appeals. The issue regarding determination of compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 16.11.1977, the award of which was relied upon by the learned court below for determination of value of the acquired land, was subject matter of appeal in this court in Paras Ram's case (supra). The compensation therein was assessed @ Rs. 80,000/- per acre. As the aforesaid award is relevant piece of evidence, considering the same, the value of the acquired land in the present case is assessed @ Rs. 80,000/- per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act. However, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the State regarding grant of benefits under Section 23 (1A) of the Act. Considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 19.7.1978 and even the award was also pronounced on R. F. A No. 1116 of 1989 -3- 14.12.1979 i.e. prior to the amendment of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 accordingly, the landowners were not entitled for the benefits under Section 23 (1A) of the Act which though has been granted by the learned court below. Inspite of the fact that only the landowners are in appeal and not the State, the issue as to whether under such circumstances the court can interfere and set aside the said benefit granted to the landowners was considered by this court in Mehtab Kaur's case (supra), under similar circumstances where in Letter Patent Appeal, the benefit granted by the learned Single Judge under Section 23 (1A) of the Act was set aside. Relevant para thereof is extracted below:- “11. .......... The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act as were given to them by learned Single Judge but for the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act as, concededly, award of the Land Acquisition Collector came into being on 27.3.1980 and the appellants were not entitled to the said benefit in view of latest Judicial precedents on that behalf of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Mr. Sarin, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, however, contends that the respondents have not filed any appeal nor challenged the benefits given to the appellants under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act and, therefore, order passed by learned Single Judge on that count should not be set aside. However, we find that under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, there is ample power with the Appellate Authority to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made irrespective of the fact that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and such powers can be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. Thus, exercising the powers, under Order 41 Rule 33 of Code of Civil Procedure, we set aside order of learned Single Judge insofar as, it pertains to grant of benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act to the appellants.” In view of the authoritative enunciation of law in the aforesaid case, the award of benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the Act to the landowners, is set aside. R. F. A No. 1116 of 1989 -4- For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the landowners are accepted with proportionate costs as far as value of the land along with statutory benefits thereon is concerned. However, the benefit granted to them under Section 23 (1A) of the Act is set aside. 3.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge