Kanta Devi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr

3. Twenty seven References were made to the Land Acquisition Judge, Kurukshetra, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same were disposed of by an Award dated 2nd January, 1993.

4. Being dissatisfied as to the extent of compensation awarded, the claimants filed Regular First Appeals before the High Court. Similarly, being aggrieved by the enhancement of the market value of the lands, the State 4 also preferred 27 Regular First Appeals. In all, 51 Regular First Appeals, arising from the common Notification, Award, and Judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge, were taken up for hearing together and were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by a common Judgment dated 10th August, 1999.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein filed Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.As) before the Division Bench of the High Court which were mostly dismissed in limine or on account of technicalities. All the appellants, however, are similarly circumstanced and having the same grievance. This batch of appeals have been preferred against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in the various Letters Patent Appeals.

7. Coming back to the facts of the case, it may be indicated that on 12th June, 1986, the State of Haryana issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, referred to as the "LA Act") for the acquisition of 265 kanals and 19 Marlas of land in the revenue estate of village Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra for the establishment of a new grain market, construction of rest house, staff quarters and other connected purposes of the Market Committee, Ismailabad. Notification under Section 6 was thereafter issued on 9th June, 1987 and the Collector, Kurukshetra, by his 6 Award dated 14th March, 1989 awarded compensation for 250 kanals and 17 marlas, comprising the first category of land referred to above, at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. For 15 kanals and 2 marlas of land comprising the second category of lands, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre. Solatium and interest were also awarded in terms of the provisions of the LA Act.

9. In the Regular First Appeals filed both by the claimants and the State of Haryana, the High Court by a common Judgment dated 10th August, 7 1999, enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands to Rs.2,88,000/- per acre and it was indicated that all the claimants were entitled to uniform compensation as the lands had been acquired for a common purpose. Consequently, the appeals preferred by the State of Haryana were dismissed and those of the claimants were allowed in part.

10. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that in enhancing the compensation payable to the claimants-appellants herein, the learned Single Judge took one exemplar (Ex. P-6) for the purpose of comparison vis-`-vis the land acquired. Ex. P-6 is a sale deed, whereby on 30th January, 1986, a plot of land measuring 148 square yards was sold for Rs.24,000/-, whereas the notification under Section 4 was issued six months after on 12th June, 1986. On the basis of the above, the price of the land in question works out to Rs.9,60,000/- per acre. The learned Single Judge, while accepting the aforesaid valuation, directed 8 deduction of 70% of the value of the lands towards development charges to make the acquired land suitable for the purpose for which it had been acquired and also having regard to the nature of the lands on the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. On the basis of such deduction, the learned Single Judge uniformly enhanced the compensation in respect of the lands acquired to Rs.2,88,000/- per acre. As indicated hereinbefore, most of the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by the Division Bench in limine or on technical grounds.

29. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court.

32. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part only to the extent that the deduction of 70% applied by the learned Single Judge and endorsed by the High Court is reduced to 60%.

33. Having regard to the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs.