Tej Ram and another vs State of Haryana and another

Nirmal Yadav, J.—In pursuance of Haryana Government notification dated 19.9.1985 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short `the Act'') and subsequent notification under Section 6 of the Act, total land measuring 7.44 acres located at Village Sulkha, Tehsil Balwal was acquired for a public purpose i.e. construction of road from Sulkha to Badrana. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the land into four categories i.e. Chahi, Barani, Bhud and Banjar Gair Mumkin and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/, 17,100/, Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 8,000/ per acre, respectively. He also awarded 12% additional charges on the amount of compensation as per provision of Section 23(1A) of the Act. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellantsclaimants filed reference before the Additional District Judge, Rewari. During the course of reference proceedings, the claimants produced copy of mutation, Exhibit P1. On the other hand, the respondent produced copies of mutations, Exhibit R/1 to R/3. The learned Additional District Judge, Rewari after going through the evidence, declined to enhance the market value and thus, upheld the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimantslandowners, have approached this Court through the present first appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice a couple of judgments of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) LACC 220 and State of Punjab v. Pohu and others, 1986 R.R.R. 228 : 1985 PLJ 583 visa vis a judgment of Single Bench in Ghisa Ram and another v. State of Haryana and others, RFA No. 926 of 1990, decided on 7.1.2004. On the basis of above judgments, the learned counsel very fairly conceded that in fact, the evidence on record produced by the claimant as well as by the respondent is inadmissible and, therefore, this matter may be remanded back to the reference Court for fresh decision. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana also accepted the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant and stated that he has no objection if the matter is remitted back to the reference Court for fresh decision.

Accordingly, the award passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari dated 1.6.1990 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the reference Court for fresh decision in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Rewari on 24.5.2006 at 10.00 a.m. The learned District Judge shall either keep the matter with himself or allocate the same to a Court of competent jurisdiction. Since the matter relates to the year 1990, the reference Court shall dispose it of within six months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it.