Panmeshwari And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.
RFA No. 6563 of 2015 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 6563 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision :10.12.2015 Panmeshwari and others ... Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the landowners. Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J.
This order will dispose of three appeals bearing RFA Nos. 6563, 6808 and 7101 of 2015, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
The landowners are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 23.1.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') sought to acquire 157 acres 7 kanals 15 marlas of land situated in village Sankhol, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar for development of Industrial area. The same was followed by notification dated 22.1.2002 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector'), vide award No.7 dated 20.1.2004, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 6,75,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the awards of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned court below, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, assessed the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 8,25,000/- per acre. The same has been impugned by the landowners before this Court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the claim SHARMILA 2015.12.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
Chandigarh
RFA No. 6563 of 2015 (2) made in the present set of appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 3787 of 2009- Gaje Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 6.11.2015, whereby compensation for the land acquired vide same notification was further enhanced. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid fact. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded in Gaje Singh's case (supra), the present appeals are disposed of in the same terms. 10.12.2015 (Rajesh Bindal) sharmila Judge SHARMILA 2015.12.15 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.
Chandigarh