Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashpal And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 May, 2022
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases.
Date of decision:13.05.2022
Yashpal and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate
Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate
Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate
Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate
Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate
Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate
Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev K. Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate
Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate
Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate for
Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate
for the landowners.
For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
1 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -2-
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana and
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate
for HSIIDC.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The landowners while filing appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), pray for modification of the award dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC'). The notification under Section 4, 6 and the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') as well as by the RC are common. The learned counsels representing the parties are ad-idem that this batch of appeals can be decided by a common judgment.
2. The relevant particulars of the case are as under:-
Sr.No. Particulars Dated Remarks
1. Notification under 11.01.2010 For setting up industrial Section 4 of the 1894 Model Township, Phase-3, Act Rohtak, to be planned and developed as integrate complex for industrial, transport, Section 30-C, Sector 30-D, Sector 31-C and other utilities etc. in village Balyana, Tehsil & District Rohtak.
2. Declaration under 10.01.2011. -do-
Section 6 of the 1894 For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
2 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -3-
Act
3. Award No.20, under 04.01.2011 Land measuring 2235 kanals
Section 11 of the 1894 2508 Marlas
Act.
4 Assessment of the Rs.33,00,000/- per acre.
market value
5. Assessment by the RC 22.02.2017 All the references were
22.02.2017. dismissed.
3. The appellants claim that the acquired land is located near National Highway No.10 Rohtak-Delhi Road, Asthal Bohar and various hotels, banquet halls, Tilyar Lake are situated adjacent to the acquired land. Various educational institutions, namely, Baba Mast Nath College of Engineering, Eye Hospital, Ayurvedic College, College of Pharmacy, College of Physiotherapy, Shri Baba Mast Nath Residential Public School, Indus Public School, DAV Public School, and DAV Centary Public School, Rohtak, are located nearby. The residential colonies i.e. The Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Sun City Projects, Omaxe Project, Parsavnath Builder and Sector 27 are also located close by. The acquired land is surrounded by residential colonies and as such, the price of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 5 crore per acre. It is also claimed that in village Balyana, previously, the land has been acquired for setting up Industrial Model Township Phase-1 and II, where many big industrial concerns like Asian Paints, Maruti Testing and Research Central, National Highway No.71-A and Foodwear Institute have come up. The acquired land is situated within the National Capital Region and falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. The Maharishi Dayanand University and Pandit B.D.Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, are at a short distance and religious For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
3 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -4-
places like Hanuman Mandir, Sainath Temple, Radha Soami Trust are situated near the acquired land.
4. On the other hand, the respondents claim that the LAC has correctly assessed the market value after taking into consideration the rate supplied by the District Collector and the Price Fixation Divional Level Committee. They claim that the assessment made by the LAC is just fair, adequate and reasonable.
5. On the applications made by the landowners, the matter was referred to the RC. On appreciation of the pleadings, the following issues were culled out:-
"(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time for issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?OPP (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount of enhanced compensation, as alleged, if so to what extent?OPP (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR (4) Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition?OPD (5) Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and mis-joinder of unnecessary party?OPR (6) Whether the petition is barred by limitation?OPR (7) Relief."
2. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES 2.1 ORAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE LANDOWNERS PW1 Sultan PW2 Satyanarain PW3 Dharam Singh For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
4 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -5-
PW4 Krishan Kumar Patwari
2.2 ORAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE HSIIDC
RW1/A Krishan Kumar Patwari
2.3 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE
LANDOWNERS (APART FROM THE SALE DEEDS THE DETAILS WHEREOF ARE GIVEN IN PARA 2.5.) Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW4/A Award No.20, dated 04.01.2013 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE HSIIDC APART FROM THE SALE DEEDS THE DETAILS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 2.5) Ex.R1 Authority Letter by HSIIDC in favour of Shri Krishan Patwari Ex.R8 Minutes of the meeting of the Divisional Level Price Fixation Committee, held on 16.11.2012 Ex.R9 Supplementary award No.3, dated 11.11.2013 with respect to assessment of the market value of the trees standing on the land Ex.R10 Notification dated 09.11.2010, issued by the State of Haryana providing for no litigation incentive as well as rehabilitation and resettlmeent policy for land acquisition oustees Ex.R11 Layout-cum-demarcation plan of Phase-I, II and III, Industrial Model Township, Rohtak Ex.R12 Detailed layout plan identifying the location of various parcels of land sold through sale exemplars produced by both the parties 2.5 In order to determine the market value of the acquired land on the basis of comparable sale method, the most important evidence is the sale exemplars produced by the parties. For brevity and convenience, the information of the various sale deeds produced by the respective parties has For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
5 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -6-
been compiled in a table which is extracted as under:-
Sale Deeds produced by the Landowners Sr. Exh. Sale Deed Total Price Per Acre Village No. No. No. and Area Consideration price Date
1. P-1 1233 160 40,000/- 12,10,000/- Rohtak 03.05.2007 Sq. Yds.
2 P-2 1234 200 50,000/- 12,10,000 /- Rohtak 03.05.2007 Sq. Yds 3 P-3 710 19,668 5,70,37,200/- 1,17,36,049/- Balayana 01.07.2010 Sq. Mts.
4 P-4 2147 4K 26,00,000/- 52,00,000/- Balayana
06.10.2009 5 P-5 173 2.5 Acre 1,25,00,000/- 50,00,000 /- Kheri Sadh 28.04.2010 6 PX 3089 1K-7.5M 6,01,563/- 35,00,002/- Bohar 03.07.2006 7 PY 5095 3A-7K- 1,64,44,375/- 41,50,000/- Bohar 14M 07.09.2006 Sale Deeds produced by the State 8 R2 1236 6K-18M 8,62,500/- 10,00,000/- Balayana 172 24.08.2007 acquired
----------
1/2, 2/1,
9/2, 10/1
173
-------
15/2, 16/1
9 R-3 187 2K-8M 4,80,000/- 16,00,000/- Balayana
118 very close to
29.04.2010
----------- acquired
11, 12/1, land
20
119
-----
15
10 R-4 2510 4K 10,00,000/- 20,00,000 /- Balayana
108 nearby
04.12.2009
---------
13/1, 18,
19, 22, 23,
24/1
117
----------
3, 4/1
11 R-5 348 4K 8,00,000/- 16,00,000/- Balayana
For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
6 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -7-
18.05.2010 134 nearby
8 min
12 R-6 160 6K-7M 9,52,500/- 12,00,000/- Balayana
118 nearby
02.05.2008
1, 9, 10,
12/2
107
21, 22
13 R-7 1608 5K-1M 7,58,000/- 12,00,792/- Balayana
135 nearby
09.01.2009
7, 8/1,
14/1, 14/2,
15
2.6 The RC, after finding out that none of the sale deeds produced
by the landowners is with respect to the comparable parcels of land with that of the acquired land, consequently, held them as not worthy of reliance. The exemplar sale deeds Ex.R3 and R5 are with respect to the period post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, whereas, the exemplar sale deeds Ex.R2, R4, R6 and R7 are of a lesser price than the assessment made by the Collector, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the 1894 Act. Thus, the RC dismissed the reference applications.
3. ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS 3.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgment passed by the RC along with the record of the lower Court which was requisitioned. 3.2 The learned counsel representing the landowners have also filed synopsis along with the gist of their arguments. It is contended that as per the no litigation policy, the landowners could have got extra compensation at the rate of 20% of the market value assessed by the LAC. They claim that For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
7 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -8-
once the State has, itself, offered to pay additional 20% of the market value, therefore, they should not be deprived of the same. It is further claimed that the exemplar sale deed No.2147, dated 10.10.2004, Ex.PR, with respect to land measuring 4 kanals located in village Balyana which is sold at the rate of Rs.52,00,000/- per acre, is a comparable sale instance and the RC committed an error while directing a deduction of 50% towards development of the land to come to a price of Rs.26,00,000/- per acre. It is contended that the deduction of 50% is totally wrong. While relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Bhagawathulla Samanna And Ors vs Special Tahsildar And Land Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam, AIR 1992 SC 2298, it is claimed that no development cut should have been applied. They also rely upon Shaji Kuriakose vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, AIR 2001 SC 3341. While referring to sale deed No.710, dated 01.07.2010,Ex.P3 with respect to land measuring 19668 Sq. mts. sold at the rate of 1,17,35,894/-, the learned counsels claim that even if the deduction of 50% is applied, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs.58,67,947/-.
3.3 Per contra, learned counsel representing the HSIIDC while drawing the attention of the Court to the layout plan produced by the HSIIDC, Ex.R12, identifying the location of the various parcels of land sold through sale exemplar/ sale deeds contends that the appeals, having no force, are liable to be dismissed. The acquired land of village Balyana is far away from the National Highway and from the exemplar sale deeds produced by the HSIIDC, it is proved that the market value of the acquired land has been correctly assessed by the LAC which has also been affirmed by the RC. For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
8 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -9-
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 At this stage, it is important to carefully examine the layout plan
Ex.R12. The acquired land has been depicted in yellow colour. The various parcels of land sold through exemplar sale deeds produced by the landowners have been identified with green colour, whereas, the exemplar sale deeds produced by the HSIIDC have been identified by pink colour. It is evident that the exemplar sale deeds produced by the landowners are located at a distance from the acquired land. Furthermore, sale deeds Ex.P1, and P2 are with respect to developed plots in Rohtak City. Exemplar sale deed Ex.P3 is with respect to the period post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It is also located at a distance. Hence, the same is not comparable. Similarly, the parcel of land sold through sale exemplar Ex.P4, although, belongs to the land located in village Balyana, but it is at a sufficient distance from the acquired land. The sale exemplar Ex.P5 is not only with respect to the period post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act but is also located in a different village i.e. Kheri. Thus, the location of the land is also far away from the acquired land as the aforesaid land is located on the National Highway. The sale exemplar Ex.PX is also with respect to the period post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act Ex.P3, though, its location has not been specified, is a parcel of land located in village Bohar, which is a separate revenue estate and in the absence of evidence to prove its comparative location with the acquired land, is not considered safe to be relied upon. The next sale exemplar Ex.PY is with respect to land measuring 31 kanals and 04 marlas sold on 07.09.2006 at the rate of Rs.41,11,093.75/- per acre. This parcel of land is For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
9 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -10-
also in village Bohar, which is a separate revenue estate. 4.2 On the other hand, HSIIDC has produced sale deed Ex.R2 dated 24.08.2007 with respect to land measuring 6 kanals and 18 marlas, comprised in Rect. No.172, Khasra Nos.1/2, 2/1, 9/2, 10/1, Rect. No.173, Khasra No.15/2 and 16/1. This parcel of land has been sold for Rs.8,62,000/-. The land is located in village Balyana, itself. The per acre price comes to Rs.9,99,420/- per acre. Furthermore, the parcel of land sold through sale exemplar Ex.R3, R4, R6, R7 and R5 are with respect to various parcels of land located close to the acquired land. These parcels of land are comparable with the acquired parcels of land. It is evident from the analysis of the exemplar sale deeds Ex.R2 to R7 that the land was being sold in the area at a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. 4.3 Now the Bench proceeds to analyse the arguments of the learned counsels representing the landowners. 4.4 The first argument is with respect to the grant of 20% as no litigation incentive as per the notification dated 09.11.2010. On a careful reading of the aforesaid policy, it is evident that an application under the policy was required to be submitted according to Form-I while giving an undertaking not to file any application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act to the LAC. This policy has been introduced by the State of Haryana in order to promote acquisition of the land for public purpose with consent of the landowners. This policy is not applicable once the landowners have already filed an application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and have further preferred an appeal before this Court. Hence, the benefit of the aforesaid policy cannot be extended to the appellants since they do not qualify under For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
10 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -11-
the conditions laid therein.
4.5 The second argument of the learned counsel is with reference to
sale exemplar Ex.P4 sold vide deed no.2147 dated 06.10.2009 which is with respect to 4 kanals of land sold at the rate of Rs.52,00,000/- per acre. On a careful study of the layout plan, it is evident that the parcel of land is located far away from the acquired land. The aforesaid parcel of land is not only with respect to a small plot of land but is also not found comparable due to its distance from the acquired land. The aforesaid parcel of land is also not comparable when compared with the location of land sold through Ex.R2 to Ex.R7.
4.6 The next argument of the learned counsel is with reference to sale deed Ex.P3. This sale deed is with respect to the period post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. As per Section 23 of the 1894 Act, the crucial date for assessment of the market value of the acquired land is 11.01.2010. This sale exemplar is six months after the date of notification under Section 4. Further, as per the layout plan, Ex.R-12, the location of Ex.P3 is not only at a distance but also forms a part of an already developed area. Hence, the aforesaid sale exemplar cannot be relied upon. 4.7 The RC has erred in observing that the sale deeds reflecting lower price than the market value assessed by the LAC cannot be looked into by the Court in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the 1894 Act. The aforesaid observations are incorrect. Section 25 of the 1894 is extracted as under:-
"25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.-The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
11 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -12-
section 11."
4.8 The matter is no longer res-integra. The Supreme Court, after
considering Section 25 of the 1894 Act, in Lal Chand vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 has conclusively held that the sale deeds reflecting a price lesser than the market value assessed by the LAC can be taken into consideration while assessing the market value but an amount below the amount assessed by LAC cannot be determined.
4.9 Now the Bench proceeds to analyse the judgments relied upon. The first judgment is in Bhagawathulla Samanna And Ors case(supra). The Supreme Court, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, held that the principle of deduction in the market value covered by comparable sale is adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. For that purpose, the court is required to consider all the relevant facts. In that case, the Supreme Court resorted to the re-assessment after considering that small plot of land cannot possibly fetch the same rate per square yard as large area of land. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is given in the peculiar facts of that case. In any case, this court, on reappreciation of evidence, has found that the sale exemplar Ex.P4, which was relied upon by the RC, is not with respect to a comparable parcel of land. In Shaji Kuriakose case(supra), the Supreme Court was considering the assessment of the market value of a large track of land in village Manakunnam, District Cochin, which was acquired for setting up a bottling plant by Indian Oil Corporation. After considering the evidence, the Court laid down five fold test for determining as to whether an exemplar is found comparable for assessing the market value. The five tests are:-
For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
12 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -13-
(1) the sale must be a genuine transaction;
(2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time which is proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act;
(3) the land covered by the sale must be located in the vicinity of the acquired land;
(4) the land covered by the sale must be identical in nature to the acquired land;
(5) the size of the plot of the land covered by the sale must be similar with the land acquired.
4.10 While applying the aforesaid five fold tests in the present case, it is found that none of the sale exemplars produced by the landowners can be relied upon. The sale exemplar Ex.R2 is with respect to the acquired land. The parcels of land sold though sale deeds Ex.R3 to R7 are with respect to land located in close vicinity and hence, are found to be comparable with the acquired land.
4.11 Keeping in view the fact that the acquired land located in villages Balyana, Kheri Sadh is in the close vicinity of the acquired land located in village Kharawar, this Bench has explored the possibility of awarding the same amount of compensation, however, is compelled to denounce the approach for the following reasons:-
(1) the acquired land located in village Kharawar is located on the National Highway, whereas, the acquired land of village Kheri Sadh starts after the acquired land of village Kharawar comes to an end. The acquired land of village Balyana acquired through the present notification starts after the acquired land of village Kheri Saadh comes to For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 ::: RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -14- an end. In other words, the acquired land in villages Kharawar, Kheri Saadh and Balyana are through adjacent, but in a long strip of land.
(2) Furthermore, on a careful perusal of the layout plan produced in evidence (Ex. R12) with respect to village Balyana, it is evident that the market value of the acquired land is nowhere near the market value assessed by the RC with respect to the acquired land located in village Kharawar.
(3) From geographical standpoint, the acquired land of village Kharawar is better located when compared with the acquired land of villages Kheri Sadh and Balyana. 4.12 Further, once the comparable sale deeds of the acquired land as well as of parcels of land located nearby, have been produced by the State of Haryana, the court should not assess the the market value on the basis of mere assumptions while ignoring such relevant exemplar sale deeds.
5. DECISION 5.1 In view of the foregoing discussion, the conclusion is inevitable. Finding no merit, the appeals are hereby dismissed. 5.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
13th May, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasonable :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
14 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::
RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and
other connected cases -15-
Sr. No. Case No. Party name
YASHPAL AND ORS V/S
1. RFA-3894-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
RAM CHANDER AND ORS V/S
2. RFA-3895-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
MAUJI AND ORS V/S
3. RFA-3896-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
KULJEET SINGH AND ORS V/S
4. RFA-3897-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
OM NARAIN AND ORS V/S
5. RFA-3898-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
HAR KISHAN AND ORS V/S
6. RFA-3899-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
OMPATI V/S
7. RFA-3924-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
JAGBIR SINGH V/S
8. RFA-3925-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
MOHJIT SINGH V/S
9. RFA-3926-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
RAJPAL V/S
10. RFA-3927-2017
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
RAJ KUMAR V/S
11. RFA-3928-2017
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
NARAYAN V/S
12. RFA-3929-2017
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
SMT. MURTI DEVI V/S
13. RFA-3930-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
SMT. MURTI DEVI V/S
14. RFA-3931-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
SULTAN AND ANR V/S
15. RFA-3955-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
SULTAN AND ANR V/S
16. RFA-3956-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
SULTAN AND ANR V/S
17. RFA-3957-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
KAPTAN V/S
18. RFA-3958-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
DHARAM SINGH AND ORS V/S
19. RFA-4005-2017
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
20. RFA-4006-2017 SHRI CHAND AND ORS V/S For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 ::: RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -16- STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS AJIT SINGH & ORS V/S
21. RFA-4007-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS DHARAM SINGH AND ORS V/S
22. RFA-4008-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS BHAGWANI DECEASED THR LRS AND ORS V/S
23. RFA-4152-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS OMPATI V/S
24. RFA-4147-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS OMPATI V/S
25. RFA-4148-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS RAJPAL AND OTHERS V/S
26. RFA-4149-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS RAJENDER AND OTHERS V/S
27. RFA-4150-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS RAJENDER AND OTHERS V/S
28. RFA-4151-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SATYAWAN V/S
29. RFA-4153-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SATBIR & OTHERS V/S
30. RFA-4154-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS DHARAM SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS
31. RFA-4155-2017 AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS RANBIR AND ANR V/S
32. RFA-4156-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS DHARAMPAL V/S
33. RFA-4606-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SANJEET V/S
34. RFA-4607-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS PARKASH V/S
35. RFA-4608-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS DHARAMBIR SINGH V/S
36. RFA-4609-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS YASHPAL V/S
37. RFA-4950-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS SURESH BALA AND ORS V/S
38. RFA-4951-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS DHARAM SINGH AND ORS V/S
39. RFA-4952-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 ::: RFA-3894 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected cases -17- SURESH BALA AND ORS V/S
40. RFA-4953-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ANOOP & ORS V/S
41. RFA-5060-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS RANDHIR SINGH V/S
42. RFA-5163-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SATYAVIR AND OTHERS V/S
43. RFA-5313-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SATYAVIR AND OTHERS V/S
44. RFA-5314-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS V/S
45. RFA-5455-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS BANI SINGH DECEASED THR LRS AND ORS V/S
46. RFA-144-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS HAWA SINGH & ANR V/S
47. RFA-2823-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS MEENA KUMARI & ANR V/S
48. RFA-3058-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE For Subsequent orders see RFA-2015-2019, RFA-3149-2018, RFA-3368-2018 and 10 more.
17 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 25-07-2022 02:25:12 :::