Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Ram Mehar Singh And Another on 2 June, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 3060 of 2011 ( 1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 3060 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 2.6.2011
State of Haryana ...Appellant
vs
Ram Mehar Singh and another ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
The State of Haryana has filed the aforesaid appeal against the impugned award seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the landowners. Along with the appeal, applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling thereof have also been filed.
The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land measuring 1.142 acres acquired for extension of Ludana Link Drain from RD 8000 to 13000 tail vide notification dated 26.7.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Haryana, pertaining to Village Ludana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.9.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 14.2.2007 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation of the acquired land of the land owners @ ` 7,00,000/- per acre. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court.
Learned Counsel for the State submitted that learned Court below has not given any reasoning while determining the compensation payable for the acquired land. He further argued that there is no site plan produced on record RFA No. 3060 of 2011 ( 2) by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them, is located. He further submitted that learned Court below has erred in law while granting ` 7,00,000/- per acre as compensation for the acquired land.
Heard learned State counsel and perused the relevant referred record. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 26.7.2006 and the award was announced by the Collector on 14.2.2007. There is no dispute that Government had issued a policy on 6.4.2007 whereby minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land in the year 2005, were further revised. The relevant extract of policy, dated 6.4.2007, is as under:-
"Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana.
Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005.
Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows:
i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Rs.12.50 lacs per acre.
Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State.
iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. Haryana State.
(These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894).
2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows:
RFA No. 3060 of 2011 ( 3)i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Rs.16.00 lacs per acre.
Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State.
iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre. Haryana State.
3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
In my opinion, the aforesaid letter can be considered as a piece of evidence because as per the policy letter the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable for all acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007, irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The rates were revised from ` 5,00,000/- per acre to ` 8,00,000/- per acre from 2005 to 2007. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 14.2.2007 whereas the policy comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007 just about a month later.
In my opinion, the policy dated 6.4.2007 can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land for the reason that the process to frame or revise a policy starts in advance, finalisation thereof takes time. One month's difference is not much.
Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of appeal filed by the State will not affect the merits of the appeal of the landowners, in case filed by them. The same shall be considered independently.
2.6.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge