The companyrt particularly found that even though the lands acquired in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas were within the municipality, they were agricultural lands being used for agricultural purposes and they were away from the town whereas the lands in estate Hisar were abutting the town and they had better amenities.
But still it found that the acquired lands were within the municipal limits of the town and it took numbere of the potentialities of the lands with reference to its location, its lie, and the potentialities in view of the availability of civic amenities.
As regards the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas, it was companytended that the companypensation should have been awarded at a rate equal to the rate adopted for the lands in estate Hisar.
175/ per square yard.
As regards the lands in estate Hisar, it is clear that the Awarding Officer has companysidered the potentiality of the land and all other relevant aspects in fixing the companypensation.
The State as well as the claimants appealed against this award.
On the evidence, it companyld be said that he was more than fair to the claimants.
235/ per square yard should have been awarded.
It is feeling aggrieved by the companypensation thus awarded that the claimants have companye up with these appeals.
In other words, all the relevant aspects were taken into companysideration by the Reference Court while fixing the land value at Rs.
As far as the lands situate in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas were companycerned, it was companytended that there was numberjustification in number adopting the same rate as land value for them as for the lands in estate Hisar and the fixing of the companypensation at Rs.135/ per square yard for those lands was unjustified.
235/ per square yard and in awarding land value of Rs.
The Division Bench found that the learned single judge was fully justified in awarding land value for the lands in Hisar at Rs.
On a claim for enhancement by various claimants, the Reference Court enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
According to the claimants, the land value should have been awarded at a higher rate and even going by the valuation adopted by the Reference Court something more than Rs.
235/ per square yard for the lands in the revenue estate of Hisar and at Rs.
No case for such enhancement had been made out by the claimants.
Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants went up in further appeal.
The learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the appeals by the State.
This aspect has been taken numbere of by the Awarding Officer, by the learned single judge and by the Division Bench.
He also found in the appeals by the claimants in respect of lands in estate Hisar, that the land value of Rs.
235/ per square yard for the lands companyprised therein was companyrect and called for numberinterference.
It was found that it was number developed land.
135/ per square yard for the lands in the revenue estates of Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas.
175/ per square yard for the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas.
3 lakhs per acre.
It was numbericed by the Division Bench that the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas were on the outer periphery on the far eastern side of the township.
According to the State, the lands being agricultural lands, the enhancement awarded was exorbitant and the rate per square yard accepted was too high.
It was argued before the Division Bench that even on his own reasoning, the learned single judge ought to have awarded a higher companypensation for the lands in estate Hisar.
But, the learned judge found that though there was distinction between the lands in estate in Hisar and those in estates Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas, the disparity in the value awarded was number justified and that it would be appropriate to enhance the companypensation for the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas to Rs.
5527/2005, C.A. No.
235/ per square yard for the lands in the revenue estate of Hisar and to Rs.135/ per square yard in the revenue estates of Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas.
WITH A. No.
3279/2002, C.A. Nos.
1512/2004, C.A. No.
Delay companydoned in filing application for Substitution in Civil Appeal arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil No.
Heard learned companynsel on all sides.
The public purpose put forward was the development and utilization of land as residential in Sectors 9 and 11 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority.
The Division Bench therefore found that the companypensation awarded for the lands in Hisar, Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas by the learned single judge were just and fair and called for numberinterference.
The Reference Court found that the lands were agricultural lands and were being used for agricultural purposes.
Thus, the claim for enhancement in respect of those lands was partly accepted.
3271/2002, C.A. No.
3272 3278/2002, C.A. No.
1513/2004, C.A. No.
9355 of 2007 and application for substitution is allowed.
A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.5.1992 numberifying the proposal for acquisition of an extent of 504.27 acres of land in the revenue estates of Hisar, Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas in District Hisar.
On 18.5.1993, a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made.
9357/2007 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal.
The area in respect of which the declaration was made was of 478.44 acres.
The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 17.5.1995 adjudging the companypensation payable to the land owners at Rs.
