Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5049
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J
Rajinder Kumar Gupta through LR and others – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others – Respondent
RFA No. 418 of 1996 (O&M)|RFA No. 419 of 1996|RFA No. 420 of 1996|RFA No. 421 of 1996|RFA No. 593 of 1996
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Ms. Aparna Singhal, Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Ms. Harpreet Kaur
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinash Jain
Proper uniform assessment of land compensation must consider the nature of the land and relevant market sales, adjusting for time and development factors.
Headnote:The case concerns five appeals challenging an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants, seeking enhanced compensation for acquired land, argued for uniform valuation; the court found merit in their claims, especially regarding the nature of the land assessed. The judgment modifies the reference court's award to a uniform market rate per acre. Issues framed include the assessment of market value and the applicability of certain sale instances. The court emphasized treating all land uniformly based on its classification and neighboring sales as it was not rebuffed by the respondents. The final compensation awarded was modified to Rs. 55,000/- per acre for the acquired land.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals involve seeking enhanced compensation for land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions of landowners and state against compensation assessment. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court evaluates submissions and rationale for land value assessment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. decision modifies compensation and maintains statutory rights intact. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of the present five (05)
appeals bearing RFA Nos. 418, 419, 420, 421 & 593 of 1996, as they arise out of a common acquisition/award. In all these appeals, the appellants-landowners are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
2. In present appeals, a challenge has been made to the Award dated 29.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”). The Reference Court accepted the reference petitions filed by the appellants-landowners and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 20,000/- per acre of Barani land; Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Banjar land; and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Gairmumkin jungle land, along with other statutory benefits.
FACTS
3. Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Haryana Government Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “1894 Act”), issued on 10.01.1991, and followed by Notification dated 20.12.1991, under Section 6 thereof, certain land belonging to the appellants, situated within the revenue estate of Village Ahmad Majra, was acquired. The total land acquired measured 207 Bighas 10 Biswas. The acquisition was made for public purposes, namely, “plantation of forest.” The Land Acquisition Collector, Jagadhri (for short, “LAC”), in an award dated 23.11.1993, awarded Rs. 23,500/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs. 15,700/- per acre for Barani land, Rs. 7,800/- per acre for Banjar land, and Rs. 3,900/- per acre for Gairmumkin land.
4. Dissatisfied with the aforementioned award, landowners/ interested persons filed objections under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. These objections were decided vide award dated 29.11.1995, by the learned Reference Court. In this award, the market value of the acquired land was assessed and enhanced at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.
20,000/- per acre for Barani land, Rs. 10,000/- per acre for Banjar land, and Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Gairmumkin jungle land, along with other statutory benefits.
CONTENTIONS:
ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS-LANDOWNERS
5. Impugning the aforementioned award dated 29.11.1995, learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s) submit that the LAC and the learned Reference Court erred in assessing the compensation based on the nature of the land. They argue that as per the khasra girdawari for November 1990-91 and March 1992 (the time of acquisition proceedings), the entire land under acquisition was recorded as Chahi, therefore, a uniform market value should have been awarded by treating the entire land as Chahi.
5.1. Due to absence of a sale instance for the revenue estate of Village Ahmad Majra, the learned counsel(s) for the appellant(s) rely upon two sale instances dated 29.04.1988 and 03.07.1990 pertaining to the abutting/adjacent revenue estates of Kot Basawa and Kot Mushtarka, respectively. These instances are presented to substantiate the claim for an enhancement in the market value of the acquired land. They argue that since there is no sale instance for the revenue estate of Village Ahmad Majra, the learned Reference Court should have relied on the sale instances (Ex. P-5 and P-6) pertaining to the abutting revenue estate.
5.2. Learned counsel(s) further point out that the compensation awarded for the tube-well and trees was also on the lower side, and they contend that the learned Reference Court committed an illegality in awarding less compensation towards the same.
In light of the above contention(s), learned counsel(s)
for the appellant(s) pray fo
