9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') were dismissed by the High Court. The land of the Appellants was acquired by the Government of Haryana, which falls in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2,75,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre for Tibba/Tall and Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. The Appellants had filed objections to the said determination of compensation by the LAC and the matter was referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad under Section 18 of the LA Act. The learned ADJ passed the award dated 21.2.2006. Vide this award, he categorized the land into two categories, namely category-A and category-B and fixed the compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre for category-A and Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre for category-B. Still dissatisfied and aspiring for further enhancement of the compensation, the Appellants filed Regular First appeal from the aforesaid orders of the learned ADJ. However, these appeals have been dismissed holding that the compensation as fixed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 4.9.2001 and from this the High Court inferred that process for sale must have been started much prior thereto. In the instant case, since the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act is dated 11.1.2001, in the opinion of the High Court, it was the most approximate date to the aforesaid sale of land in favour of CWC. The High Court also found that the land sold to CWC is located at a link road whereas the land of the Appellants which was acquired by the Government was located at a crossing of five roads and thus lands sold of HSIDC to CWC was better located. The High Court, thus, relied upon the said sale deed on the basis of which it has concluded that the assessment of compensation by the learned ADJ is most appropriate. 5. In an endeavour to find fault with the aforesaid approach of the High Court, Mr. Singla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the High Court committed an error in relying upon the said solitary document and in the process ignore other more relevant documents which had been produced by the Appellants. He submitted that the acquired land is strategically located which the landowners have proved by producing on record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. 7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now been set at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi and Ors. v. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which are made by the Appellants herein, have been accepted by the court. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Market Federation Ltd. (HAFED), on the other hand, submitted that the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant documents even including sale deed on which the Appellants relied upon, but found that the only relevant document for the purpose of arriving at just compensation was Ex. P-15. He submitted that in preferring to make this document as the basis for compensation, the High Court has given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Fatehabad, District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and development of residential and commercial purposes in Sector 3, Fatehabad, the compensation in respect thereof has been questioned in Civil Appeals Nos. 319-52 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals have been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, being SLPs (C) Nos. 26772-79 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in para 25, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 206 per square yard. The High Court modified the said award and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 260 per square yard for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters abutting National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest of the acquired land was maintained at Rs. 206 per square yard. The area in question being already developed to some extent, a cut of 50% on the value is, in our view, excessive. We agree with Mr. Swarup that resorting to the belting system by the High Court was improper and that at best a standard cut of on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
