Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hsiidc vs Deepak Kumar And Others on 18 November, 2021
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.11.2021
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (Now Haryana State
Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited)
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Deepak Kumar and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocates
for the HSIIDC.
Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Nitish Sharma and Ms. Pooja Yadav, Advocates
for the appellant(s) (In RFA-20 and 3015 of 2020).
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sehoran and Mr. Amit Jain, Advocates
for the appellant(s) (In RFA174-2020) and for the
respondents (In RFA-3998-2019).
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (In RFA-3259-2019).
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (In RFA 805-2021, 3633 and 3661-2019)
and for the applicant/respondent (In CM-601-CI-2021 In
RFA-4007-2019).
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent No.1 (In RFA-4010 & 4020 of 2019).
Ms.Manpreet Kaur, Advocate
for Mr. Nipun Vashisht, Advocate, for the respondent No.1
(In RFA-4003-2019).
Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the cross-objector and the respondent (In RFA-4000-2019).
Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate,
for the appellant(s) (In RFA-4345, 4391, 4392, 4396, 4398,
1 of 26
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 :::
Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 2
Other Connected Cases
4461, 4462 of 2019, 44, 54, 55, 140, 143, 157, 167, 358 and 979
of 2020) and for the respondent(s) (In RFA-3991, 3992, 3994,
3997, 4000, 4001, 4002, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4008, 4011, 4012,
4014, 4015, 4016, 4017, 4018 & 4019 of 2019 and Cross
Objection No. 30-2020).
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. By this judgment, a batch of the regular first appeals (detail whereof is on the foot of the judgment), filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") assailing the correctness of the common award passed by the Reference Court on 21.11.2018, shall stand disposed of. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that these appeals as well as the cross-objections can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
2. FACTS 2.1 The Reference Court, while deciding the 29 applications under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, has increased the market value of the acquired land to uniformly ₹80,88,880/- per acre, while removing the different valuation of the acquired land, as per distance from the road. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") had offered to pay ₹40,00,000/- per acre, with respect to chahi and gair mumkin land, ₹48,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of 2½ acres from the approach road and ₹50,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of 2½ acres from the National Highway - Delhi-Jaipur Road vide award No. 1, dated 10.05.2013. Before this Court proceeds with the matter, it is necessary to note the essential particulars.
Date of notification under 13.05.2010
Section 4 of the 1894 Act
2 of 26
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 :::
Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 3
Other Connected Cases
Date of notification under 12.05.2011
Section 6 of the 1894 Act
Land Acquisition Award 10.05.2013 acquiring 1814
No.1 kanals 5 marlas of land which
comes to 226 acres, 6 kanals
and 5 marls
2.2 From the award, it has been noticed that out of the acquired
land, chahi/gair mumkin land is to the extent of 1169 kanals, whereas the land abutting the approach road upto the depth of 2½ acres is 46 kanals and 10 marlas and the land abutting the National Highway-8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway) upto the depth of 2½ acres is to the extent of 222 kanals and 15 marlas.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved against the proposed assessment of the market value by the LAC, on the various applications filed by the landowners, the cases were referred to the Reference Court. The landowners have claimed that the market value of the acquired land is more than ₹5,00,00,000/- per acre, as the acquired land is situated just 20 Kms. from the industrial hub, located at Manesar. It has further been asserted that the acquired land is in the close vicinity of Bhiwadi Industrial Area (Rajasthan), and it falls within the National Capital Region and a large number of industrial groups have already set up their factories/units near the acquired land. On the other hand, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HSIIDC") has filed a written statement claiming that the award passed by the LAC is just, fair and adequate and therefore, the applications should be dismissed. 2.4 From the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Reference Court on 19.01.2017:-
3 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 4 Other Connected Cases
i) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification No. 32/4/2010-4 IBI dated 13.05.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP iA) Whether petitioners M/s Rajdhani Nurseries etc. are entitled to get enhanced compensation regarding their acquired structure, trees etc.? OPP
ii) Whether the petitions are time barred? OPR
iii) Relief".
3. EVIDENCE 3.1 The landowners have examined Bharat Raj, the Special Power of Attorney holder of the owner Raj Singh, Sukhraj Chhabra, Mrs. Sadhna Gupta for herself as well as the power of attorney holder of Indira Gupta, Gautam Yadav (Authorized Representative of M/s Milestone Megacity Private Limited), Rakesh Arora (Director, M/s Rajdhani Industries Limited), Satinder Pal Singh (Authorized Person, M/s Northern India Project) have stepped into the witness box as PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.8 and PW.10, respectively. Nand Kumar Nagpal (Architect/Valuer), has been examined as PW.4, whereas Viraj (Junior Engineer), has been examined as PW.6. Sunil Kumar (Registration Clerk) has been examined as PW.7, whereas Ram Avtar (Area Patwari) has been examined as PW.8 and Nafe Singh as PW.9. On the other hand, the Corporation has examined Rajiv Goyal, IAS (Senior Manager, HSIIDC), Dharuhera as RW.1. It will be noted here that the LAC has assessed the market value on the basis of the comparable sale method after relying upon the recommendations of the Divisional Level Land Rates 4 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 5 Other Connected Cases Fixation Committee. The documentary evidence produced by the respective parties would be noticed in the subsequent part of the judgment 3.2 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance, perused the judgment passed by the Reference Court as well as the record of the Reference Court which had been requisitioned.
4. ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 4.1 Sh. Jai Vir Yadav, learned senior counsel representing some of the landowners, while referring to the various sale instances Ex.PW.7/A to Ex.PW.7/F registered on 19.06.2008, contended that the market value of the land in the year 2008 in the area of village Kapdiwas was @ ₹1,04,00,000/- per acre. He, while referring to Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(g), 2(i), 2(hha), 3, 3(A)(1) and (2), 4 and 5 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1975 Act"), submits that no cut/deduction on account of the development charges could have been made as the developer is entitled to recover the development charges from the allottees. In the alternative, he submits that at the most, only a 10% cut for the development could be imposed as laid down in Chakas v. State of Punjab 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 211.
4.2 Mr.Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate, has contended that the appellant M/s Milestone Megacity Private Limited purchased land from the farmers/landowners in the year 2008 for the development of the logistic parks and warehousing projects. He submits that the appellant company was permitted to change the usage of the said land (CLU) on 11.02.2019 to the extent of 43.01 acres, out of which the land measuring 19.8 acres belonging 5 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 6 Other Connected Cases to the company has been acquired. He further submits that various developers/colonizers including BESTECH, Vatika Group, SRS, Evelon, Raheja, Haldco, Dwarikadheesh etc. had already undertaken the residential group housing projects in the area and the respondents have also acquired the aforementioned land for the development of industrial growth and the development project for Sector 15, 16 and 17, Dharuhera. While drawing the attention of the Court to the sale deed dated 15.02.2010, which has been produced as an additional evidence, the learned counsel representing the appellant(s) contends that 5 kanals & 2 marlas of land in the village Malpura, which is an adjoining village, has been sold @ ₹2,24,80,000/- per acre. He further drew the attention of the Court to the change of the land use given by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, on 11.02.2009 to contend that no deduction could be made from the landowners for the development.
4.3 Mr. Manish Soni, the learned counsel representing some of the landowners, contended that the acquired land is in fact located at the most strategic point, as it is abutting many leading industries including M/s Hero Honda, M/s Lumax Limited, M/s Pashupati Spinning and Weaving Mill, M/s Paramount Rico Limited, M/s Amartex, M/s Autofit and BML Munjal University. He submits that the acquired land is located at a distance of 48 Kms. from New Delhi and the deduction of 1/3rd applied by the Reference Court is excessive.
4.4 Mr. Rajiv Sharma, the learned counsel representing some of the landowners while reiterating the arguments of the learned counsel representing the various other landowners, has also contended that M/s 6 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 7 Other Connected Cases Rajdhani Nursery Limited and M/s Dawar Leasing and Finance Limited had developed an orchard on the acquired land where 2250 fruit trees and plants of kinnow (hybrid mandarin), sweetlime, amla (Indian gooseberry), timber plants etc. were grown and the Reference Court has erred in partially accepting the assessment made by the Experts. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph AIR 1973 SC 2463 to contend that the fruit bearing trees will give yield for more than 20 years, therefore, the net income out of the trees should be added while calculating the market value. 4.5 Per contra, the learned senior counsel representing the Corporation contends that the Reference Court has committed an error in applying only 1/3rd towards deduction for development, particularly when, a significant part of the land acquired was required to be utilized for various common purposes like roads, drains, parks etc. The Reference Court has also erred in ignoring the sale exemplars produced by the Corporation on the ground that such sale exemplars depict a price lower than the amount awarded by the LAC while misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act. He further submits that if the sale exemplars Ex.R2 to R7 are taken into consideration, the total amount of consideration in all the six sale deeds comes to ₹ 1,07,88,109/- and their average per acre, rate comes to ₹17,98,018/-. He, hence, contends that the award passed by the Reference Court is required to be modified and the Reference Court has unreasonably hiked the market value.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Bench is of the considered view that the following issues need 7 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 8 Other Connected Cases adjudication:
1. Whether the comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period should be a preferred evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land?
2. If the sale exemplars similar to the acquired land, and of proportionate reasonable size(s) are available, is it appropriate for the Court to apply discount, deduction or cut on the market value for development work or development costs?
3. Once it is proved on file that the acquired land was being used for commercial purposes by the various corporate bodies, is it appropriate for the Court to assess it as an undeveloped stretch of land?
6. DISCUSSION 6.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract the sale exemplars produced by both the parties, which is extracted as under:-
Sr. Exhibit Date of Area Land Total Price Price Per Village Type of No. No. Sale Deed calculated (In ₹) Acre (In ₹) Land in marlas
1. PW.7/A 19.06.2008 3A-19M 499 3,24,35,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 50//16/1, 51//1/2, 1/4 , 2/1,2/3, 3
2. PW.7/B 19.06.2008 10A6K-14M 1734 11,27,10,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 50//14/2/2, 15/1,51//8/3, 9/3, 13, 14/2, 15, 16, 27/3, 52//7/4, 8/3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21
3. PW.7/C 19.06.2008 10A-6K-13M 1733 11,26,45,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 49//10/2, 11/1, 17, 18, 19/1, 22/2, 23, 24, 50//6/1, 15/2, 51//4/2, 5, 6, 7/1, 26/1, 27/1
4. PW.7/D 19.06.2008 2A-4K-19M 419 2,72,35,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 50//6/2, 7/1, 52//6
5. PW.7/E 19.06.2008 6K-19M 139 90,35,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi
8 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 9 Other Connected Cases Sr. Exhibit Date of Area Land Total Price Price Per Village Type of No. No. Sale Deed calculated (In ₹) Acre (In ₹) Land in marlas 49//11/3, 20/1, 21/2, 21/3, 21/4, 50//14/2/1, 16/2, 51//7/3, 8/2, 9/2, 14/1, 26/3, 27/2, 52//7/3, 8/2, 8/4, 9/2, 10/2
6. PW.7/F 19.06.2008 10A-6K-13M 1733 11,26,45,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 48//21, 22, 23/1, 49//9, 10/1, 11/2, 12, 25, 51//26/2, 24/4, 52//1, 2, 7/2, 8/1, 9/1, 10/1,
7. PW.7/G 01.12.2010 315 Sq. Yards 1.5 30,00,000 4,60,95,238 Kapriwas Residential
8. PW.7/H 12.01.2012 1A 160 5,00,00,000 5,00,00,000 Maheshwari Chahi
9. PW.7/I 23.07.2008 7A4K-1M 1201 7,50,62,500 1,00,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 47//21, 48//16, 23/2, 24, 25, 52//4, 5, 53//1, 2, 10
10. PW.7/J 08.09.2008 1A-2K 200 1,30,00,000 1,04,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 48//16, 23/2, 24, 25, 47//21, 52//4, 5, 53//1, 2, 10
11. PW.7/K 12.07.2006 5A 800 4,95,00,000 99,00,000 Gadhi Chahi Alawalpur 21//11, 12, 13, 19, 20
12. PW.7/L 21.08.2006 4A-5K-3M 743 3,95,00,000 85,06,056 Malpura Chahi 39//23/2/2, 24/2, 49//3/2, 4/1, 7/3, 8/1, 13/2, 14/1, 17/3, 18/1 13, PW.7/M 27.07.2006 16A-1K-4M 2584 9,00,00,000 55,72,755 Malpura Chahi 55//16, 56//1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 20, 50/21/2, 22/2, 23/2, 51//25/2, 55//5, 6, 15, 56
14. PW.7/N 08.01.2007 11A-4K-7M 1847 16,16,12,500 1,40,00,000 Gadhi Chahi Alawalpur
15. PW.7/O 05.06.2006 6A-3K-7M 1027 5,07,08,125 79,00,000 Gadhi Chahi Alawalpur
16. PW.7/P 27.07.2006 110 Sq. Yards 3.63 2,42,000 1,06,48,000 Dharuhera Residential
17. PW.7/Q 28.11.2006 1A-4K-4M 244 1,78,12,500 1,16,80,327 Malpura Chahi
18. R-2 09.03.2009 3A-3K-4M 544 68,00,000 20,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 20//6, 15, 16, 25/1/1
19. R-3 10.02.2010 2K-18M 58 5,71,000 15,75,172 Kapriwas Chahi 19//4/2
20. R-4 21.04.2008 2A-6K-3M 443 35,99,375 13,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 9 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 10 Other Connected Cases Sr. Exhibit Date of Area Land Total Price Price Per Village Type of No. No. Sale Deed calculated (In ₹) Acre (In ₹) Land in marlas 4//8/1, 14, 12, 19, 8//1, 10, 11, 12/1, 9//4, 5, 18//24, 26//4/2, 5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 27//1, 2, 3, 4, 7/1, 7/3, 8, 9, 10, 80, 78, 177, 34//7/2, 8/9, 13/1, 14/2, 15/1, 16/1/1/2, 33//11/1, 34//15/2, 16/1/1, 11/2/1, 12/1,
21. R-5 03.03.2008 1A-1K-2M 182 14,79,000 13,00,219 Kapriwas Chahi 15//18, 19/1, 13
22. R-6 26.09.2011 5K-4M 104 17,00,000 26,15,384 Kapriwas Chahi 19/2
23. R-7 21.11.2011 2K 40 5,00,000 20,00,000 Kapriwas Chahi 18//10/2, 11/1, 20/2, 21/2, 19//4/2, 6, 7, 15, 16/1
24. R-8 09.04.2009 3A-7K-7M 627 80,00,000 20,41,467 Malpura Chahi
25. R-9 29.11.2010 4K-7M 87 9,52,000 17,50,804 Malpura Chahi
26. R-10 09.11.2009 1A 160 15,75,000 15,75,000 Malpura Chahi
27. R-11 09.03.2010 1A-3K-19M 239 25,30,000 16,93,723 Malpura Chahi
28. R-12 29.11.2010 5K 100 10,94,000 17,50,400 Malpura Chahi
29. R-13 02.02.2011 7K-4M 144 15,75,000 17,50,000 Malpura Chahi
30. R-14 10.11.2010 2A-5K-11M 431 67,19,000 24,94,292 Malpura Chahi
31. R-15 21.02.2011 2A-7K-8M 468 1,10,09,250 37,63,846 Malpura Chahi
32. PY 15.02.2010 5K-2M 102 1,42,62,445 2,23,72,462 Malpura --
Produced in additional.
Evidence 6.2 In order to understand the information compiled in above-noted table, it is appropriate to explain the meaning of the words/phrases used, as under:-
1. 1 Rectangle = 5 X 5 = 25 Acre
2. 1 Acre = 160 Marlas
3. 8 Kanal = 1 Acre
4. 1 Kanal = 20 Marlas
5. 1 Acre = 4840 Sq. Yards
6. 1 Marla = 272.251 Sq. Feet = 30.25 Sq. Yards
7. 1 Inch = 2.54 cm 10 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 11 Other Connected Cases
8. 1 Foot = 12 Inch.
9. 1 Sq. Feet = 12 X 12 =144 Inch.
10. 1 Yard = 3 Feet
11. 1 Sq. Yard = 9 Sq. Feet
12. 100 Sq. Yards = 900 Sq. Feet
13. 1 Kanal = 0.125 Acre
14. 1 Marla = 0.00625001 Acre
15. "//" denotes Rectangle Number.
16. "/" denotes Khasra/Killa Number.
6.3 A careful perusal of the layout plan (Ex.R19) produced by the HSIIDC and the various sale exemplars produced, it is evident that the land has been acquired from the land purchased through sale exemplar Ex.P.7/B, Ex.P7/C, Ex.P7/D, Ex.P7/E, Ex.P7/F, Ex.P7/I, Ex.P7/J and Ex.P7/L. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant has correctly contended that a large chunk of the acquired land which was purchased by M/s Milestone Megacity on 19.06.2008 @ ₹1,04,00,000/- per acre, has been acquired. They are also correct in contending that the landowners could not be deprived of the aforesaid amount under the pretext of development cut, deduction or discount in the name of the development work or development cost. The Reference Court has held that the base value as in the month of June, 2008 was ₹1,04,00,000/- per acre. Keeping in view the time gap between June 2008 (the date of sale deeds) to 13.05.2010 (the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued), the Reference Court has granted an annual increase @ 10% per annum to arrive at a figure of ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre. However, the Reference Court has erred in applying 1/3rd development cut on this amount. 6.4 Moreover, a careful examination of the integrated shijra 11 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 12 Other Connected Cases (Ex.R19-a revenue layout plan produced by the HSIIDC) depicting the revenue estates of village Kapdiwas, Garhi Alalpur, Malpura and Ghatan Mahniyawas, it is evident that the acquired land is located on the north-west side of Delhi-Jaipur road and the National Highway bisects the land of village Kapdiwas into two different parts. One part of the land of the village is on the eastern side where residential area of the village is nearly 2 acres away from the highway, whereas the other part (acquired land) is on the western side of the highway. The land acquired in the village Kapdiwas is a strip of land on the north-western side along with the National Highway, having a depth of upto 20 acres of land (approximately) which reduces to around 10 acres, when one travels towards village Malpura from village Kapdiwas on the National Highway. On the careful study of rectangles and khasra numbers of the sale instances (Ex.P.7/B, Ex.P7/C, Ex.P7/D, Ex.P7/E, Ex.P7/F, Ex.P7/I, Ex.P7/J and Ex.P7/L), it becomes evident that the landowners have purchased the land of village Kapdiwas @ ₹1,04,00,000/-
per acre upto the depth of 10-12 acres. Therefore, the Reference Court is correct while observing that the acquired land cannot be divided into separate parts to assess the market value of the acquired land. 6.5 After examining and analyzing the various judgments, passed by the Courts, on the aspect of the development cut, this Bench in Jai Singh v. State of Haryana (Regular First Appeal No. 3000 of 2016, decided on 15.11.2021), opined as under:-
"7.2 Let us first examine the statutory provisions. It is clear that the Legislature never intended that the Court must apply a cut/deduction in each and every case. Rather, it has been laid 12 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 13 Other Connected Cases down that while acquiring the land, the landowners, who stand deprived of the property against their wishes, shall be held entitled to a sum of 30% on such market value in lieu of the compulsory and involuntary nature of acquisition. In common legal parlance, this amount is called solatium. This part of the amount is in the nature of compensation to the owner for depriving him of his property without his consent.
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 7.13 Thus, it is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has recognized in more than one judgments that if there is no dissimilarity between the acquired land and the sale exemplar produced is of a reasonable size, then, it shall not be appropriate for the court to apply proportionate deduction to reduce the market value.
7.14 The principle underlined by all these judgments is that while assessing the market value, the court is required to apply the wisdom of a common man and arrive at a figure which a willing seller will get from a voluntary purchaser for the property. Once the market value of the acquired agricultural land is being assessed and many sales exemplars of considerably big sized plots of the agricultural land are available, the application of cut/deduction for development, in the considered opinion of the Court, is not justified unless the court is assessing the market value of a land where the sale exemplars produced before the Court are of relatively small 13 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 14 Other Connected Cases sized plots or are being used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. The deduction can be applied when comparable sale exemplar is of a plot of a very small size as compared to the acquired land in order to moderate the difference between wholesale and retail prices as observed by the Supreme court in judgment passed in LaL Chand (supra). The appropriate percentage of cut can also be applied if the sale exemplar is of a plot which was being used or was capable of being used for different purposes like residential, commercial or industrial. The development cut can also be applied when the comparable sale exemplar is of a plot which is located at a key position like near the road, market, developed residential colony or commercial establishments. There can be more than one reasons to apply the development cut. However, if the price is reduced while assessing the market value of the acquired land, without observing the aforesaid principles while making the deduction in the facts and circumstances of the individual cases, it shall be against the statutory intendment. In a case where the court is making an assessment with respect to an undeveloped acquired land as an undeveloped area and the sale exemplar produced for such determination is also of an undeveloped piece of land of reasonable size, then any deduction which is made on account of development work or development cost, in the considered opinion of this Court, shall not be considered appropriate. This can be explained by an 14 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 15 Other Connected Cases example. Hypothetically, if a farmer purchases a sufficiently large chunk of land just before the notification under Section 4. On the acquisition of the land purchased, he is likely to produce the sale exemplar of the land purchased by him. If the court treats the sale exemplar as the base value and thereafter applies a cut or deduction on account of development cut or development cost per se, he shall stand deprived of the market value paid by him while purchasing the land. It would be against the spirit/intention of the Act. While assessing the market value of the undeveloped/agricultural land, the court is not required to work out the market value of the developed land or plot. In such circumstances, the application of development cut in the considered opinion of the court would not be appropriate and justified. The cut/deduction is applied by the courts in order to arrive at a correct figure representing the true market value of the acquired land on the relevant date. This method has been devised by the Courts in order to tide over the situations where exactly comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period are not available. The court, while making adjustments or treating the prices of the developed plots of smaller size as the base, endeavours to work out the fair market value of the acquired land.
7.15 This matter can be examined from another angle. The intention of the legislature is not to put the landowners who stand deprived of the land through double whammy. On the one 15 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 16 Other Connected Cases hand, their immovable property is compulsorily taken away, whereas on the other hand, they are not being compensated adequately due to the deduction towards the development. This cannot be the intention of the legislature. The fundamental intention of the Legislature has always been to make the land laws fair, just and reasonable towards the sufferers of compulsory land acquisition.
7.16 Once a large chunk of agricultural land is being acquired for carving out a residential/commercial or industrial colony and the sale exemplars of plots of reasonable size of agricultural land are available, then in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to apply a development cut for the purpose of assessment either towards development cost or towards the area to be used for passages, roads, drains, parks etc. The landowner stands in the shoes of a loser even if some part of the acquired land is being used for providing common facilities. The landowner does not gain anything exclusively on account of reservation of land for common facilities. In fact, the landowner suffers a dual loss. On the one hand, he is deprived of the acquired land and on the other hand, he does not receive a fair and appropriate amount towards the involuntary deprivation.
7.17 There is yet another aspect of the matter. The development agency/organization/colonizer or the government do not sell the developed plots on the market value assessed by
16 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 17 Other Connected Cases the court. The plots are sold while determining price on basis of the demand and supply. Usually, the plots are sold on the basis of price determined on per sq. feet or per sq. yard. basis and not on per acre. Therefore, certain percentage of land utilized for carrying out development activities like passages, roads, drains, parks etc. is to be accounted for by the developer and not the landowner. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the development cost incurred or to be incurred for providing common facilities is also required to be borne by the developer.
7.18 It is well settled that while assessing the market value, the court is required to adopt a pragmatic approach. The landowners who stand deprived of the property cannot be permitted to be denied of an adequate and just compensation as well. This is the responsibility of the courts to see that the landowners are adequately compensated. The learned counsel representing the parties have failed to draw the attention of the court to any precedent which lays down that while assessing the market value, the application of development cut or deduction on the base value is mandatory.
6.6 Furthermore, it is crystal clear that the total area of the land purchased through the sale exemplars Ex.P7/A, Ex.P.7/B, Ex.P7/C, Ex.P7/D, Ex.P7/E, Ex.P7/F, Ex.P7/I and Ex.P7/J is more than 47 acres @ ₹1,04,00,000/- per acre. The total acquisition in the village Kapdiwas is little bit more than 226 acres. Thus, cumulatively, the aforesaid sale deeds 17 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 18 Other Connected Cases constitute a big part of the acquired land. The land has been purchased by a corporate entity through the sale deeds referred to above. The landowners cannot be deprived of the amount which has been spent by them, while purchasing the land.
6.7 Now let us carefully examine the sale exemplars produced by the HSIIDC. The HSIIDC has produced six sale exemplars of the various parcels of the land located in village Kapdiwas. From a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid sale exemplars, it is evident that the sale deeds are with respect to the different parcels of the land comprised in Rectangle No. 9, 15, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 27. The land comprised in all these rectangles is located on the eastern side of Delhi-Jaipur Highway. The land comprised in the aforesaid rectangle numbers is located behind the residential area of the village, whereas the acquisition of the land, in the present case is a location, located on the western side of the National Highway. Hence, the sale exemplars produced by the HSIIDC are not comparable particularly when the sale exemplars of the acquired land have been produced. The learned counsel representing the HSIIDC is also not correct in contending that the land covered by the sale exemplar Ex.R4 is abutting the eastern side of the National Highway. Ex.R4 is with respect to the sale of the land comprised in the rectangle No.18, 26 and 27. This parcel of the land is located behind the residential area and is at a distance equivalent to at least 20 acres, from the National Highway on the eastern side.
6.8 The State has produced only one sale instance of the land located on the National Highway, which is Ex.R15. Through this sale instance, 13 kanals and 8 marlas of land located in village Malpura has been 18 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 19 Other Connected Cases sold for ₹1,10,09,250/-. The per acre rate comes to ₹65,72,686/-. This sale deed (21.02.2011) is also post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act (13.05.2010). Once the sale deeds of the acquired land itself are available, it would not appropriate to rely upon the sale instance of the adjoining village, that is across the National Highway. 6.9 In additional evidence, the landowners have produced the sale instance with respect to a parcel of land, which is on the eastern side of the National Highway, located in revenue estate of village Malpura. In the absence of the evidence to prove that the aforesaid sale instance was with respect to a comparable parcel of land same as the acquired land, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the same particularly when the sale exemplars of the acquired land have been produced. However, the aforesaid sale instance gives an indication that the prices of the land in the area were on the increase. While assessing the market value of the acquired land, the Court is required to adopt a pragmatic and holistic approach. The Court is required to assess just, fair and appropriate market value of the acquired land. In such circumstances, it is mandatory for the Court to adopt a balanced approach lest it results in injustice to any of the parties to the litigation.
6.10 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the landowners who stand deprived of their land due to its compulsory acquisition are entitled to the market value of the acquired land as on 13.05.2010, which is assessed @ ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre. The Reference Court has erred in applying deduction of 1/3rd on account of the land to be utilized for roads, drains and other common facilities as also 19 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 20 Other Connected Cases towards development cost. The conclusion has been arrived at as some of the appellants had purchased the acquired land when it was undeveloped. 6.11 There is another aspect of the present case. In M/s Rajdhani Nurseries Limited v. State of Haryana and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 3259 of 2019), it has been claimed that the petitioner company along with their sister concern purchased more than 160 acres of land within the revenue estate of villages Kapdiwas and Sidhrawali for the development of the Industrial Township. Thereafter, M/s Rajdhani Nurseries Limited got itself registered as a company and an application for the change of land use, commonly known as "CLU", was submitted on 04.05.2011. It developed an agro based industry comprising of 12 warehouses, huge production units, along with the State of Art imported equipments over the entire land after spending a huge amount. It is claimed that the appellant company has constructed a residential house within a covered area of 1600 square feet by spending an amount more than ₹32,00,000/- and also spent the amount on the various metalled roads, drainage system, boundary wall etc. The appellant company has also claimed that 2250 trees were planted over the acquired land i.e. 1500 kinnows, 250 china orange, 150 teak, 100 sheesham and 200 neem trees. The present market value of the aforesaid plot and trees cumulatively is more than ₹2,00,00,000/-. 6.12 It may be noted here that in this acquisition the LAC did not assess the amount for superstructure or trees and hence, committed an error. Thus, the Reference Court has correctly proceeded to assess its market value. The appellant company in order to prove the damages suffered has produced copy of a report from M/s Nagpal & Associates, Architects, 20 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 21 Other Connected Cases Engineers and Valuers Ex.P4/1 dated 05.09.2012. It has been reported that there was construction on the acquired land for the residents of staff (ground floor as well as first floor), office block, rooms, toilets, tube-well room, shed, two septic tanks, well, boundary wall, road etc. From a careful perusal of the report, it is clear that the RCC structure was 310.48 square meters.
6.13 From a careful perusal of the report, it is evident that the total covered area with RCC slab on the ground floor is reported to be 204.03 square meters, whereas on the first floor it is reported as 106.45 square meters. Then there are certain constructions with ACC sheets which has been found out to be 79.75 square meters. It has been reported that the cost of construction has been assessed from the schedule of rates as applicable in the year 1988 after taking ceiling premium as available in 2009 and thereafter, an increase of 10% in the year 2010 has been applied. It may be noted here that the appellant company has not produced the account books to prove the amount spent on the construction of the structures, roads, drainage system etc. The Reference Court, after noticing that the assessment has been made by the Expert without issuing notice to the respondents in the year 2012, assessed ₹53,00,000/- for the structure existing on the acquired land. In absence of the evidence to prove the amount spent by the company for constructing, the Reference Court has, on appreciation of the evidence, found out that the report of the Expert Valuer cannot be entirely relied upon. Since no further document has been produced, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the aforesaid assessment. 6.14 The next claim of M/s Rajdhani Nurseries Limited is on account 21 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 22 Other Connected Cases of the damages suffered by it for acquiring the land having 2250 trees. It is crystal clear that the evaluation report has been prepared on 08.12.2017. The appellant company claims that the plantation was carried out in July/August, 2003. No evidence of income or yield from the fruit trees has been produced. No evidence to prove the expenditure incurred by the appellant company in plantation and maintenance has been produced by producing its account books. This report was also prepared by a private Expert, who is no doubt a District Horticulture Officer (Retired). The Reference Court has assessed the amount of compensation @ ₹1,70,00,000/- for the orchard i.e. kinnow, sweetlime, Indian gooseberry and timber plants. The Expert has assessed the loss on the basis of the extracted gross income from 2014 to 2028. The report itself suggests that from 2003 to 2013, there was no income from the trees. The assessment is to be made on the date of notification dated 13.05.2010. At that time, the trees were not even seven years old. Undoubtedly, there are some judgments which lay down that the assessment is to be made on the basis of economic life span of 25 years of the trees to 225 years. The learned counsel representing the appellant has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Madras v. Revered Brother Joseph AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2463. This Court has carefully read the aforesaid judgment. The Land Acquisition Officer had assessed the total compensation on the basis of the net income for the next 20 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case restored the award of the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that all the fruit bearing trees will yield for more than 20 years. In the present case, the assessment is not on the basis of the net yield. The report of the 22 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 23 Other Connected Cases Expert is also on the basis of assumptions. The Reference Court has already assessed the amount as at ₹1,70,00,000/-. The appellant company has not produced its account books to prove the expenditure made by the company in plantation and its maintenance. The appellant company is a private limited company. A company supposed to maintain proper accounts book. The appellant company has withheld the best primary evidence. Hence, this Court does not find it appropriate to interefere. 6.15 Consequently, the acquired land located in village Kapdiwas is assessed @ ₹1,21,33,320/- per acre, which shall be payable along with all statutory benefits as the Amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Resultantly, the various appeals filed by the landowners are allowed, whereas the appeals filed by the HSIIDC shall stand dismissed. 6.16 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge November 18, 2021 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
1. RFA-3992-2019 HSIIDC V/S UMED SINGH AND OTHERS
2. RFA-3993-2019 HSIIDC V/S RAJ SINGH AND OTHERS
3. RFA-3994-2019 HSIIDC V/S OM PARKASH AND OTHERS
4. RFA-3995-2019 HSIIDC V/S M/S FRIENDS CHEMICALS PVT LTD AND
OTHERS
5. RFA-3996-2019 HSIIDC V/S VIJAY AND OTHERS
6. RFA-3997-2019 HSIIDC V/S BALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
7. RFA-3998-2019 HSIIDC V/S M/S MILE STONE MEGA CITY PVT LTD
23 of 26
::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 :::
Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 24
Other Connected Cases
AND ORS
8. RFA-3999-2019 HSIIDC V/S SUKHBIR SINGH CHHABRA AND OTHERS
9. RFA-4000-2019 HSIIDC V/S ISHWAR AND OTHERS
10. XOBJR-30-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION V/S ISHWAR AND OTHERS
11. RFA-4001-2019 HSIIDC V/S SMT. REEMA AND OTHERS
12. RFA-4002-2019 HSIIDC V/S ALOK AND OTHERS
13. RFA-4003-2019 HSIIDC V/S MANDIR SHRI SITA RAM THAKURJI
MAHARAJ AND OTHERS
14. RFA-4004-2019 HSIIDC V/S TAJESHWAR SINGH AND OTHERS
15. RFA-4005-2019 HSIIDC V/S KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
16. RFA-4006-2019 HSIIDC V/S JAGDISH AND OTHERS
17. RFA-4007-2019 HSIIDC V/S SMT. SADHNA GUPTA AND ANOTHER
18. RFA-4008-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION V/S RAM KUNWAR AND OTHERS
19. RFA-4009-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION V/S SMT. INDRA GUPTA AND OTHERS
20. RFA-4010-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S M/S BHAKHTAWAR SINGH BAL KRISHAN AND COMPANY AND OTHERS
21. RFA-4011-2019 HSIIDC V/S BALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS
22. RFA-4012-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S OM PARKASH AND OTHERS
23. RFA-4013-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S M/S RAJDHANI NURSERIES LTD AND OTHERS
24. RFA-4014-2019 HSIIDC V/S OM PARKASH AND OTHERS
25. RFA-4015-2019 HSIIDC V/S RAM KUNWAR AND OTHERS
26. RFA-4016-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S SATPAL AND OTHERS
27. RFA-4017-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S BHIM SINGH AND OTHERS
28. RFA-4018-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S JHAGDU MAL AND OTHERS
29. RFA-4019-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS
30. RFA-4020-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTIRAL DEVELOPMENT 24 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 25 Other Connected Cases CORPORATION V/S M/S NORTHERN INDIA PROJECT DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND OTHERS
31. RFA-3633-2019 SUKHBIR SINGH CHHABRA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
32. RFA-3661-2019 SMT. SADHNA GUPTA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
33. RFA-805-2021 SMT. INDRA GUPTA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
34. RFA-3259-2019 M/S RAJDHANI NURSERIES LTD AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
35. RFA-4354-2019 DEEPAK KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
36. RFA-4391-2019 TAJESHWAR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
37. RFA-4392-2019 RAM KUNWAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
38. RFA-4396-2019 KARAN SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
39. RFA-4397-2019 JHAGDU MAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
40. RFA-4398-2019 DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
41. RFA-4461-2019 SMT. REEMA AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
42. RFA-4462-2019 OM PARKASH NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
43. RFA-4463-2019 UMED SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
44. RFA-20-2020 RAJ SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
45. RFA-44-2020 BHIM SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
46. RFA-54-2020 BALJEET SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
47. RFA-55-2020 OM PARKASH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
48. RFA-140-2020 SATPAL (NOW DECEASED) REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
49. RFA-143-2020 JAGDISH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 25 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 3991 of 2019 (O&M) AND 26 Other Connected Cases
50. RFA-157-2020 BALJEET AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
51. RFA-167-2020 ALOK AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
52. RFA-174-2020 M/S MILE STONE MEGA CITY PVT. LTD AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
53. RFA-358-2020 OM PARKASH NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
54. RFA-550-2020 VIJAY AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
55. RFA-979-2020 RAM KUNWAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 26 of 26 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:12:04 :::