Roshan Lal vs State of Haryana

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)

The landowners are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge. They have, thus, filed these four Letters Patent Appeals. A few facts may be noticed.

On November 16, 1981 the State of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of land situated in village Daulatpur Nasirabad. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation on the basis of the nature of the land. The landowners sought references under Section 18. The District Judge held that since the land was being acquired for the purpose of development of residential and commercial areas, the nature of the land viz. Chahi or Barani was not relevant. He assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 28/ per square yard. Not satisfied with the award, the landowners approached the High Court through different appeals. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the landowners was that the market value of the land should have been assessed at the rate of Rs. 33/ per square yard. This contention was accepted. Despite that, these appeals have been filed.

Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that in R.F.A. No. 818 of 1986 (Gulzari and others v. State of Haryana) the market value of the land has been assessed by this Court at Rs. 52.50 per square yard. Similarly, in Tek Chand and others v. State of Haryana and another, 1996(1) RRR 680 (P&H) : LPA 546 of 1989 the market value of the land situated in village Sarhaul was assessed at Rs. 52.20 per square yard. Thus, it is contended that even the present appellants should be awarded compensation at the same rate.

We have perused these judgments. It is the admitted position that the land which was the subject matter of these two cases was acquired by a different notification. It is located in different villages. Thus, these decisions cannot constitute a valid basis for determining the market value of the land which is the subject matter of the present cases. Resultantly, learned counsel can derive no benefit from these decisions.

Mr. Yadav has then referred to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Munshi v. The Land Acquisition Collector, 1992(1) RRR 185 (P&H) : RFA No. 779 of 1990. In this case the market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 54.60 per square yard. Learned counsel submits that the notification which fell for consideration was the same as in the present case.

It is admitted by the learned counsel that a total area of 3490 kanals 7 marlas had been acquired for development of residential and commercial areas in Gurgaon. Unless the evidence on record clearly establishes, the entire area cannot have the same market value. The location and the surroundings are relevant factors for assessing the market value. The market value has to be essentially adjudged on the basis of the evidence produced by the landowners in respect of the area owned by them on the basis of the sale transactions etc. for similar land which adjoins their land. The only evidence produced by the landowners in respect of their claim consists of Exhibit P1 according to which the market value of the land was Rs. 26/ per square yard. This document was an award of the Court in respect of land which had been acquired vide notification dated November 23, 1979. On this price an enhancement at the rate of Re. 1/ per square yard per year was allowed. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has allowed further relief and enhanced the value to Rs. 33/ per square yard.

On a consideration of the matter, we do not find any illegality or miscarriage of justice so as to call for any interference in the Letters Patent Appeals. As a result, all the four appeals are dismissed. However, in the circumstances of these cases, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.