R.F.A. No. 1590 of 1993 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1590 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2010 Smt. Gindori .. Appellant v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. The land owner is in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 13.11.1981, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 8.94 acres, situated in village Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carterpuri) Hadbast No. 63, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for residential-cum-commercial area. The same was followed by notification dated 19.1.1984, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 50,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 22,000/- per acre for magda land and ` 7,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owner filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 33/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the acquisition of land, the appellant did not file objections under Section 18 of the Act, however, after the decision of this court in some of the appeals and also award of the learned Reference Court in some cases, she filed application under Section 28-A of the Act before the learned court below. The Collector refused to award compensation to the appellant in terms of the judgment of this court. On a reference of the dispute to the learned court below, though by that time pertaining to the same acquisition, R.F.A. No. 1590 of 1993 [2] this court in R.F.A. No. 779 of 1990 –Munshi v. The Land Acquisition Collector, decided on 1.5.1991 had determined the value of the land @ ` 54.60 per square yard, still the learned court below merely relied upon the award of the Reference Court ( Ex. R1) and granted compensation @ ` 33/- per square yard. The submission is that once the value of the land pertaining to the same acquisition has been assessed @ ` 54.60 per square yard, the appellant in the present case is also entitled to same amount of compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the application filed by the appellant in the present case under Section 28-A of the Act was not maintainable as for the purpose of claiming compensation, reliance was sought to be placed on the judgment of this court. In the proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act, a land owner is entitled to claim parity of compensation relying upon an award of the reference court only. However, since the State is not in appeal, he is unable to contest the issue. Still the fact is that once the application itself was not maintainable, there is no question of grant of enhancement to the appellant. However, he did not dispute the fact that value of the land acquired vide same notification for the same village had been assessed @ ` 54.60 per square yard by this Court in Munshi's case (supra). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. It is not in dispute that at the time when the appellant filed application under Section 28-A of the Act, the reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court to claim higher compensation. The claim was rejected by the Collector. However, it is also a fact, which is not in dispute, that when the matter was referred to the learned court below for decision, an award of the reference court pertaining to the same land was brought on record. If the filing of application under Section 28-A of the Act by the appellant is considered from that date, the same was within limitation. It was for this reason only that the learned court below accepted the same and awarded him compensation in terms of the award of the reference court, even though learned counsel for the appellant had referred to the judgment of this Court in Munshi's case (supra), wherein the value of the land acquired vide same notification had been assessed @ ` 54.60 per square yard. The learned court below, opining that in proceedings under Section 28-A of the Act, the land owner is entitled to claim compensation only on the basis of the award of the reference court, did not grant compensation to the appellant in terms of the judgment of this court, which as such cannot be faulted with. However, as on today the fact is that the value of the acquired land vide same R.F.A. No. 1590 of 1993 [3] notification has been assessed at the higher rate and the land owner in the present appeal is claiming same amount. As far as maintainability of the application is concerned, in my opinion, considering the fact that the Act in question is a beneficial piece of legislation, may be at the initial stage when the land owner sought to claim higher compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, reliance was sought to be placed upon the judgment of this court, however, when the matter was referred to the reference court, an award of the reference court of a later date came on record from which the application filed by the appellant was within limitation. Considering that fact, I do not find that the application filed by the appellant was not maintainable. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, it is not in dispute that for the land acquired vide same notification, the value was assessed by this Court @ ` 54.60 per square yard in Munshi's case (supra), accordingly the award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the value of the acquired land is assessed @ ` 54.60 per square yard. The land owner shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to her under the Act. The appeal stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 16.9.2010 mk