RFA No.2013 of 1992 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2013 of 1992 Date of Decision: 3.12.2008 Union of India ..Appellant. Vs. Narayan Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: None for the Union of India. Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate for appellants in RFA Nos.2473 to 2476 of 1992. Mr.R.A.Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of 4 Regular First Appeals, bearing Nos.2473 to 2476 of 1992 filed by the claimants/land owners and seven Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.2013 to 2019 of 1992 filed by Union of India by a common judgment as identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals. Vide notification dated 22.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') land situated in village Nainwal, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired at public expense, for the public purpose, namely, for setting up National Security Guard Complex at village Nainwal. The notification of declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 18.4.1985. The Sub Divisional Officer(C)-cum-Land RFA No.2013 of 1992 -2 - Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon vide his Award No.4 of 1985 dated 22.6.1985 found the acquired land as under : Acre Kanals Marlas Chahi 30 7 10 Bhur 18 7 0 Gair Mumkin 320 7 5 370 5 15 The Land Acquisition Collector (for short `the Collector') assessed the compensation @ Rs.35,000/- per acre for Chahi, Rs.25,000/- per acre for Bhud and Rs.10,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The land owners claimed compensation @ Rs.2000/- per square yard. The land owners tendered into evidence copy of judgment dated 9.12.1987 rendered by Sh.R.K.Gupta, the then learned District Judge, Gurgaon in LAC Case No.121/86 whereas the respondent-State examined U.S.Yadav, Law Officer as RW1 and tendered sale deeds Ex.R1 dated 16.7.1987 and Ex.R2 dated 3.6.1987. The learned Reference Court discussed sale deeds Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and could not find them to be useful as an example for the purpose of determination of compensation. However, earlier judgment of the Reference Court Ex.P1 was found to be relevant piece of evidence in which the market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for the land of the same village Nainwal which was acquired vide the same notification dated 22.3.1985. Thus, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide his award dated 1.4.1992, awarded compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre of the acquired land besides awarding other statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act. Sh.R.A.Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RFA No.2013 of 1992 -3 - respondents has submitted that land measuring 1128 Acres 3 Marlas of village Manesar was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 22.3.1985 followed by declaration dated 18.4.1985 under Section 6 of the Act for the public purpose namely, for setting up of National Security Guard Complex at Manesar. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation of the acquired Chahi land @ Rs.50,000/- per acre, Magda @ Rs.45,000/- per acre, Bhud @ Rs.40,000/- per acre, Banjar @ Rs.35,000/- per acre and Gair Mumkin @ Rs.20,000/- per acre. The Reference Court redetermined the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre. The land owners came up in first appeal before this Court and in one of the appeals namely RFA No.3043 of 1989 Mangat etc. Vs. State of Haryana, vide order dated 1.9.1994 the market value of the acquired land of village Manesar was redetermined @ Rs.61,400/- per acre. Union of India assailed the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5494 of 1997 reduced the compensation to Rs.59,290/- per acre as determined by the Reference Court. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the present case though the land is of different village Nainwal but the same has been acquired vide notification dated 22.3.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by declaration dated 18.4.1985 issued under Section 6 of the Act for the public purpose namely for setting up National Security Guard Complex. Thus, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that position in the present case is similar to that of the acquisition of village Manesar in which the Apex Court has approved the compensation determined by the Reference Court, therefore, in the present case too, the compensation deserves to be approved which has been awarded by the Reference Court. RFA No.2013 of 1992 -4 - After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is quite logical, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present appeals as such, the appeals filed by the Union of India as well as by the land owners are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 3.12.2008 Judge Meenu