RFA No. 2130 of 2010

(1)

In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

RFA No. 2130 of 2010 (O&M)

Date of decision : 24.8.2010

State of Haryana and another

..... Appellants

vs

Hari Om and others

..... Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

Present:

Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

None for respondents no. 1 to 7.

None for respondent no. 8- HUDA/performa respondent.

Rajesh Bindal J.

The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal before this court

against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking reduction of compensation for

the acquired land.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide

notification dated 12.8.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired 0.89 acres

of land situated in revenue estate of Village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon,

for development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial and institutional

area of Sectors 40, 45 and 46, Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector vide

award no. 2 dated 7.6.2004, assessed the market value of land @ ` 12 lacs per

acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined

the market value @ ` 551/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in

the present appeal.

A perusal of the paper-book shows that the court below had

determined the market value of the acquired land in the present case while relying

upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh and others vs State of

Haryana and another, Ex. R-1, vide which the market value of the land acquired

vide notification dated 20.4.1990 was determined. The land in the present case was

acquired vide notification dated 12.8.2003. Considering the time gap between two

notifications, the court below granted increase @ 12% per annum. It is admitted by

the learned counsel for the State that the land in the present case is the small left

out portion otherwise big chunk of land was acquired earlier and had even been

developed by HUDA. Keeping in view these facts, it cannot be said that the value

assessed by the learned court below is on higher side.

RFA No. 2130 of 2010

(2)

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently the

applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling of appeal are also

dismissed.

Before parting with the order this court would like to comment on

the conduct of respondent no. 8/ HUDA.

A perusal of the memo of parties shows that HUDA was impleaded

as one of the respondents in the appeal specifically mentioning therein that it is

performa respondent. Meaning thereby that no relief is claimed against HUDA,

which otherwise also could not be claimed therein in view of the facts and

circumstances of the case as the appellants as well as respondent no. 8 were co-

respondent before the learned court below in the reference petition. Inspite of the

fact that HUDA was not contesting respondent, the HUDA authorities thought to

appear by filing reply to the application for condonation of delay praying therein

that it does not have any objection to the condonation of delay. As for what

purpose the HUDA had put in appearance in the appeal is best known to the

officers who thought it appropriate to defend the present appeal by putting in

appearance in court. Still the fact remains that it was only the reply which was

filed in the registry and at the time of hearing no one had appeared for the HUDA.

It is also experienced many a times that in the cases either before the court below

or before this court where some action in true sense is required, either there is no

representation or even if there is representation, the same is just formal. In the

court below either no evidence is led or before this court no arguments are

addressed. In fact which is experienced is that time and money is wasted in

frivolous litigation instead of utilising the same in cases where it is