Partap Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

Hemant Gupta, J.—By this order I shall dispose of three R.F.As bearing Nos. 820, 876 and 762 of 1985 as they arise out of same award and the same notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land.

The appellants are aggrieved against the award dated 1.3.1985 given by the District Judge, Faridabad in reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby compensation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 17 per square yard.

Vide notification dated 23.2.1973 u/s 4 of the Act, the land of the appellants situated in village Sihi was acquired by the State for utilisation for the purpose of development of Sector 10, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 7.4.1979 awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 105/- per marla. In reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned District Judge, Faridabad awarded Rs. 17/- per square yard relying upon the previous judgment of this Court Ex.P3 deed 30.11.1984 pertaining to acquisition of land of village Sihi for the development of Sector 8, Faridabad vide notification dated 7.12.1972.

In the present appeal u/s 54 of the Act, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that keeping in view the time lag between the notification dated 7.12.1972 vide which this Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square yard and notification in the present case dated 23.2.1973, the appellants are entitled to increase over the price determined by this court in the said case. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment reported as Pritam Singh and Ors. v. The State of Haryana 1987(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 428 wherein in an acquisition in respect of the land acquired for Sector 8, Faridabad vide notification dated 14.4.1974, compensation at the rate of Rs. 19/- per square yard has been awarded. It is, thus contended that rising trend in prices from the two judgments of this court is apparent and thus the appellants are entitled to increase over the market price assessed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon Goyal v. State of Haryana 1992 (1) R.R.R. 330 (S.C.) to contend that the judicial notice of rise in the market price can be taken by the Court while determining the market value.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I do not find that the approach of the learned reference Court while determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square yard suffers from any patent illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court in appeal. Learned District Judge has relied upon award arising out of acquisition dated 7.12.1972 wherein a compensation of Rs. 17/- per square yard was awarded. Land of the appellants was acquired vide notification dated 23.2.1973. Time lag between the two notification is less than three months on the basis of which, it can be presumed that there was any increase in the market price on account of which the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation. In Pritam Singh''s case (supra) the acquisition is of April 1974 i.e. after a period of more than one year. Therefore, the reliance on the said judgment is not really relevant to determine the market value.

However, the argument that the appellants are entitled to enhanced solatium u/s 23(2) and interest u/s 28 of the Act amended by Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the award by the learned District Judge is after 30.4.1982.

In view of above, all the three appeals are partly allowed. The award of the District Judge is modified to the extent of solatium and interest in terms of the amended provisions of statute. Thus, the appejknts are entitled to compensation of Rs. 17/- per square yard alongwith solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year and at the rate of 15 per cent for subsequent years in terms of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. No costs.