State of Haryana and Another vs Mangal Singh and Others

Rajesh Bindal, J.—The State of Haryana has approached this Court through the present appeal seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land awarded to the landowners.

Briefly the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 12.6.2000 issued u/s 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired land measuring 14.75 acres situated in Village Ajronda Hadbast No. 118, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as commercial, institutional, recreational and residential purposes in conformity with development plan for Sectors 20A and 20B, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 13.8.2002 determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 9,20,000/- per acre for the land touching the GT Road and Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections u/s 18 of the Act, which were referred to the learned court. The learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 763/- per square yard. The increase granted by the learned court below is under challenge in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 184 days'' in filing the appeal has also been filed.

Learned State counsel could not dispute the fact that this Court in R.F.A. No. 2392 of 1997-Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, decided on 6.10.2010, had assessed the market value of the land acquired in the area vide notification dated 3.7.1995, @ Rs. 795/- per square yard. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 12.6.2000. Considering the fact that this Court had determined the market value of land acquired vide notification dated 3.7.1995 @ Rs. 795/- per square yard, the value of the land in the present case which was acquired much after the acquisition in Mukhtiar Singh''s case (supra), no case for reduction is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed.