RFA No.641 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.641 of 2011 Date of decision:09.09.2011 Vijay Singh and others ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) Land-owners have filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation over and above the market value determined by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment. Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 25.2.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') sought to acquire land measuring 6 Kanals 8 Marlas situated at village Baruwali-II, Tehsil & District Sirsa for a public purpose namely construction of Mangla Direct Minor Extension. The aforesaid notification was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 13.06.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre along with RFA No.641 of 2011 2 statutory benefits vide award dated 2.5.2006. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the Collector, land-owners filed references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court vide impugned award dated 30.07.2010, assessed the market value of the land @ ` 7,21,500/- per acre. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that vide notification dated 25.02.2005, land of the other villages such as Madhosinghana and Shekhukhera was also acquired by the respondent-State for the same purpose and in those cases the Reference Court after relying upon Ex.P3 (i.e. copy of the instructions dated 6.4.2007 wherein the State has fixed the minimum floor rate of the acquired land @ ` 8 lacs per acre) had determined market value @ Rs.8.00 lacs per acre for the aforesaid villages. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, in the instant case though the Reference Court had determined the market value of the acquired land relying upon those instructions i.e. Ex.P3, but has made a cut illegally by reducing the compensation @ ` 7,21,500/- per acre by observing that the award in the instant case was passed prior to the implementation of Ex.P3 which was made applicable w.e.f. 22.3.2007 and therefore, a suitable cut @ ` 12% per year for the period of difference has to be applied. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the reasoning given by the Reference Court to deny the appellants compensation @ ` 8 lacs per acre on the basis of Ex.P3 for the acquired land is erroneous as in the case of villages Madhosinghana and Shekhukhera, also award of the Reference Court were prior to issuance of instruction (Ex.P3) fixing minimum floor rates of acquired land. Admittedly, by the same notification land of villages- Madhosinghana and Shekhukhera was also acquired for the same purpose RFA No.641 of 2011 3 and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector for both these villages was passed on 2.5.2006 and 22.3.2006 respectively. Admittedly, the Reference Court, in these cases relied upon the Government instructions Ex.P3 and determined the compensation @ ` 8 lacs per acre. Admittedly, appeals filed by the State of Haryana for reduction of compensation have been dismissed against the aforesaid determination of compensation for the villages Madhosinghana and Shekhukhera. It may also be noticed, at this stage, that while deciding RFA No.276 of 2009 vide judgment dated 3.2.2011 for the lands of villages Madhosinghana and Shekhukhera, this Court had noticed the said argument as raised by the State Counsel, however, same was not accepted. Thus, appeal is accepted to that extent and compensation for the acquired land of the appellants is determined @ ` 8 lacs per acre instead of ` 7,21,500/- per acre as determined by the Reference Court. Needless to say, the appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits as admissible. September 9, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE