R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 19, 2008 1. RFA No.1525 of 1992 (O & M) Chiranji Lal ---Appellant vs. The State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 2. RFA No. 1520 of 1992 Ram Sarup (deceased) through L.Rs ---Appellant. vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 3. RFA No. 1521 of 1992 Laxmi Chand (deceased) through L.Rs and others ---Appellants vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 4. RFA No.1522 of 1992 Raghbir Singh alias Mugal (deceased) through LRs ---Appellant vs. The State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 5. RFA No. 1523 of 1992 Gian Chand and another ---Appellants vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992 [2] 6. RFA No.1524 of 1992 Phool Wati ---Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 7. RFA No.1526 of 1992 Om Parkash and another ---Appellants vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 8. RFA No.1527 of 1992 Satbir Singh ---Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 9. RFA No. 1528 of 1992 Smt. Kamli ---Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 10. RFA No. 1529 of 1992 Smt. Chhota and others ---Appellants vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 11. RFA No.1707 of 1992 Ram Chander ---Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992 [3] 12. RFA No.2279 of 1992 Pyare Lal (deceased) through LRs ---Appellant vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents 13. RFA 2331 OF 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Chiranji Lal ---Respondent 14. RFA No.2332 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Ram Chander ---Respondent 15. RFA No. 2333 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Om Parkash and another ---Respondents 16. RFA No. 2334 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Ram Sarup ---Respondent 17. RFA No.2335 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Smt. Chhota and others ---Respondents R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992 [4] 18. RFA No.2336 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Smt. Kamli ---Respondent 19. RFA No. 2337 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Satbir Singh ---Respondent 20. RFA No.2338 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Pyare Lal (deceased) through LRs ---Respondents 21. RFA No. 2339 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Gian Chand and another ---Respondents 22. RFA No. 2340 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Laxmi Chand (deceased) through L.Rs and others ---Respondents 23. RFA No. 2341 of 1992 State of Haryana and another ---Appellants vs. Shri Raghbir Singh alias Mungal (deceased)through LRs ---Respondent R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992 [5] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 23 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 1520 of to 1529, 1707 and 2279 of 1992 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 2331 to 2341 of 1992 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 17.11.1982, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land measuring 256.84 acres, situated in the revenue estate of village Jharsa for developing the same into residential, commercial and industrial area for Sector 15, Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 10.12.1984 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 21.9.1986, determined the market value of land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 50,000/- per acre for Magda land and Rs. 40,000/- per acre for Aabi, Bhud, Banjar and Gair Mumkin land of land. However, the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value at Rs. 136/- per square yard for the land falling upto 10 yards deep on both sides of National Highway No. 8; Rs. 102/- per square yard for the land falling upto 10 yard deep on both sides of Gurgaon-Jharsa Road and Rs. 68/- per square yard for the remaining land. Learned counsel for the State at the very out-set pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No.2 of 1991 –Azad Singh v. The State of Haryana and another, decided on 30.9.1997, whereby this Court had upheld the award of the learned court below awarding compensation @ Rs. 136/- per square yard for the land upto the depth of 10 yards on National Highway No. 8 and Rs. 68/- per square yard for the land behind it. He further submitted that though initially the award of the learned court below in the land references was in the above terms, however, while considering the value of the acquired land in the same area vide notification dated 10.1.1983, the value of the land acquired even R.F.A. No. 1525 of 1992 [6] vide notification dated 17.11.1982 has been assessed at Rs. 136/- per square yard for the land upto 10 yards on National Highway No. 8 and Rs. 68/- per square yard for the land behind that. However, a third category was created, namely, for the land situated on Gurgaon-Jharsa road upto the depth of 10 yards, the compensation was directed to be paid @ Rs. 102/- per square yard. He further submitted that in the present appeal, the award of the learned court below deserves to be modified to the extent that compensation is to be paid only in terms of the judgment of this Court in Azad Singh's case (supra). Learned counsel for the land owners did not dispute the fact that the claim made by him in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Azad Singh's case (supra). For the reasons stated in Azad Singh's case (supra), the appeals filed by the land owners are dismissed and the appeals filed by the State are allowed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 19, 2008 mk