The State appealed seeking reduction in compensation for land acquisition. Landowners filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement based on a prior judgment. The court relied on previous precedent, dismissing the State's appeal and allowing the cross-objection.
Cross-objection by landowners for enhancement of compensation allowed; Appeal by State dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
R. F. A No. 2085 of 1992 and Cross-Objection No. 155/CI of 1999
Date of decision : 7.11.2008
State of Haryana
... Appellant
vs
Raghbir and others
.... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The State has filed the present appeal seeking reduction in the compensation whereas the landowners have approached this court through the cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 31.7.1985, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired land in Village Dharuhera, for public purpose namely for the development and utilisation thereof as residential -cum-commercial area of Dharuhera. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 30.6.1988 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 60,000/- per acre for chahi, and Rs. 35,000/- per acre for banjar qadim and gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award dated 7.10.1991, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 60/- per square yard.
Learned counsel for the landowners/respondents submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in L. P. A. No. 369 of 1996 – Jai Pal vs State of Haryana, decided on 5.2.1997, whereby the compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced to Rs. 70/- per square yard.
Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, does not dispute this
fact.
For the detailed reasons recorded in Jai Pal' s case (supra), the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the landowners/respondents is allowed in the same terms.
7.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector should be reduced by the State or enhanced by the landowners.
Whether the precedent in L. P. A. No. 369 of 1996 – Jai Pal vs State of Haryana applies to the present matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
L. P. A. No. 369 of 1996 – Jai Pal vs State of HaryanaRelied on¶15
State of Haryana
Raghbir
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
