State of Haryana vs Jai Devi

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral)

By this order I propose to decide R.F.A. 1504 of 1981 as also Cross Objections filed in the same every Regular First Appeal bearing No.

50/C1 of 1982.

Brief facts giving rise to filing of Regular First Appeal reveal that the land belonging to the claimantrespondents was notified under section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act on 24.10.1978. In due course of time follow up declaration under section 6 of the Act also came to be issued. The Land

Acquisition Collector vide Award dated 29.7.1980 assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 12,000/ per acre. Aggrieved,

respondent filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide Award dated

28.7.1981 enhanced compensation by fixing the market value of the land of Rs. 22,000/ per acre. Whereas the State has filed an appeal for setting

aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge so as to maintain the market value as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector the

claimantrespondents have filed cross objections for further enhancement of the compensation.

It is conceded position that while assessing the market value of the land at Rs. 22,000/ per acre, the learned Additional District Judge relied on

an earlier award dated 3.4.1978 Ex.PD rendered by the Court pertaining to the notification for the year 1974 vide which market value was

assessed at Rs. 18,000/ per acre.

Learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently contends that there should have been an increase of atleast 12 per cent per annum from

the market value assessed vide Ex.PD as is envisaged under Section 23(1)(i) of hte Act. Even though this 12 per cent increase per year is payable

from the date of notification till the date of award, that increase as envisaged under Section 23(a)(i) has been judicially recognised as payable while

working out the increase in the land price from an earlier award of comparable land to the acquisition of land covered under the notification in

hand. For his aforestated contention learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court in Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1988(2) PLR 120.

Worked on the guidelines as refered to above, the market value should be determined at Rs. 28,000/ per acre, further contends the learned

counsel.

Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned Assistant Advocate General has brought to my notice decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mehtab Singh and

others v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) R.R.R. 423 : AIR 1995 SC 667 wherein the view taken by this Court in (1988) 2 Rev L.R. 74 and (1988)

94 Punj L.R. 190 has been overruled. There is no choice for this Court but to reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned Addl. District Judge has worked out the market value of the land in the present case at the rate of Rs. 22,000/ per acre from the market

value assessed vide Ex.PD. Judicial notice of rise in price can be taken and it could not be urged that this increase was in any case excessive.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.