Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rampal And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 June, 2022
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -1-
other connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA-2116-2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: 24.05.2022
Date of decision: 01.06.2022
RAMPAL AND ANR ..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANILKSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Sugandha Kundu, Advocate
Ms. Gurpreet Randhawa, Advocate.
Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate
Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate
Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate
Mr. Kapil Kumar, Advocate
for Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the landowners.
Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate
Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
for Union of India.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 Two batches of appeals (details whereof are on the foot of the judgment), filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 1 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:34 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -2- other connected cases (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), with a prayer to modify the awards passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC') on 15.01.2016 as well as 15.03.2016, arising from common notifications under Section 4, 6 of the 1894 Act, shall stand disposed of. The acquisition has been made for establishing National Defence University in villages Binola and Bilaspur (contiguous villages) in Teshil Manesar, District Gurugram. 1.2 The learned counsel representing the parties are not only common but also ad idem that these appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
1.3 The relevant particulars of the case are as under:-
Sr. Title Details No.
1. Notification under Section 4 of 21.01.2011 the 1894 Act was issued proposing to acquire land for National Defence University.
2. Declaration under Section 6 of 12.01.2012 the 1894 Act was published.
3. Vide Awards No.13 and 14, 08.09.2012 The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.52,00,000/- per acre while observing that 25% extra per acre shall be payable for the land abutting National Highway No.8 upto the depth of 2 acre of village Binola which comes to Rs.65,00,000/- per acre shall be paid.
4. Extent of land acquired In Village Binola:- 162 acres, 2 kanals and 4 marlas, In village Bilaspur:- 42 acres 6 kanals and 11 marlas.
5. While deciding 18 reference 15.01.2016 petitions, the RC assessed the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 2 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -3-
other connected cases market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.73,64,787/- with respect to village Bilaspur.
6. With respect to the acquired 15.03.2016 land in village Binola, the RC relying upon the judgment dated 15.01.2016, assessed the same market value i.e. Rs.73,64,787/-.
1.4 The landowners claim that the acquired land is not less than Rs.10 Crore per acre. It is claimed that the acquired land is located near the factory of Hero Honda and Ansal Industrial Park. Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway is hardly 5 kms away from the acquired land. There are four engineering colleges in the nearby area. On the other hand, Union of India claim that the assessment has been correctly made by a Committee consisting of senior officers and the market value of the acquired land is not more than what has been awarded.
2. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE BINOLA 2.1 ORAL EVIDENCE:-
2.1.1 In the cases arising from village Binola, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:-
1. PW-1 Sh. Babu Lal, Patwari
2. PW-2 Sh. Subhash Chand, Patwari,
3. PW-3 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Registration Clerk
4. PW-4 Sh. Rameshwar
5. PW-5 Sh. Bishan Kumar, Clerk from Excise and Taxation Department
6. PW-7 Sh. Amit Bhandari, Director of For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
3 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -4- other connected cases M/s Auto Mac Pvt. Ltd.
7. PW-8 Sh. Inder, Patwari
8. PW-9 Sh. Lalit Kumar, Photographer
9. PW-10 Sh. Ashok Kumar, one of the landowner 2.1.2 On the other hand, the respondents examined the following witnesses:-
RW-1 Sh. Rattan Singh, SDO-II, Defence State Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt.
2.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
2.2.1 The landowners in order to prove their case, produced the following evidence apart from the sale deeds, table of which is compiled in para 3.2.2 of the judgment:-
Sr. No. Exhibit Particular
1. Ex.P-1 Revenue layout plan of village
Binola
2. Ex.P-2 Revenue layout plant of village
Bilaspur
3. Ex.PW5/A Form VAT-GI
4. Ex.PW6/1 Report of architect, engineer and
valuer
5. Ex.P6/2 Plan of existing building
6. Ex.P8 Final development plan for
control areas of Gurgaon-
Manesar Urban Complex, 2021
7. Ex.P9 Final development plan for
control areas of Gurgaon-
Manesar Urban Complex, 2025
8. Ex.P-10 Final development plan for
control areas of Gurgaon-
Manesar Urban Complex, 2031
AD
9. Ex.P9 Final development plan for
control areas of Pataudi and
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -5-
other connected cases Haily Mandi, 2031
10. Ex.PW8/A Statement prepared by LAC
11. Ex.PW8/B Statement prepared by LAC
12. Ex.PW9/1 Photographs to Ex.PW9/34
13. Ex.P10/B Part of the revenue layout plan and Ex.P10/C
14. Ex.P12 Information received under Right to Information Act, 2005 2.2.2 On the other hand, the Union of India has produced Ex.R-2 (proceedings of the meeting of Divisional level Committee held on 02.02.2012) and Ex.R-3 (the award passed by the RC on 15.01.2016, while deciding the cases of village Bilaspur acquired by same notification).
3. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE BILASPUR 3.1 ORAL EVIDENCE:
3.1.1 In the cases arising from village Bilaspur, the landowners examined the following witnesses:-
Sr. No. Exhibit Particular
1. Ex.PW-1 Sh. Bhupender Singh, Registration
Clerk
2. Ex.PW-2 Sh. Babu Lal, Patwari
3. Ex.PW-3 Sh. Adarsh Kumar, one of the
landowner.
3.1.2 Whereas, on the other hand, respondents examined Sh. Rattan
Singh, SDO-II, Office of Defence State Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt. 3.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
3.2.1 The landowners in order to prove their case, produced the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 5 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -6-
other connected cases following evidence apart from the sale deeds, table of which is compiled in para 3.2.2 of the judgment:-
Ex.P-5 (revenue layout plan).
On the other hand, the Union of India has produced the revenue layout plan and the sale deeds details whereof are given in the separate table, produced in para 3.2.2 of the judgment.
3.2.2 VILLAGE BILASPUR
Sr. Exhibit Sale Date Total Area Land Price Price Per Village
No. Nos. Deed Calculated consideration Acre
No. in Marlas
P-3 1981 07.01.2011 5A-3K-9M 869 80000000 14729574 Bilaspur
1.
P-4 1276 05.08.2011 4A-2K- 680.39 59000000 13874395 Bilaspur
2. 0.39M
R-3 412 09.06.2010 6K 120 3000000 4000000 Bilaspur
3.
R-4 440 14.06.2010 1A-5K-10M 270 6750000 4000000 Bilaspur
4.
R-5 476 17.06.2010 3A-3K-7M 547 13675000 4000000 Bilaspur
5.
R-6 525 25.06.2010 6K-10M 130 3643000 4483692 Bilaspur
6.
R-7 1148 06.10.2010 1A-1K- 192.5 4894450 4068114 Bilaspur
7. 12.5M
R-8 1442 16.11.2010 1A-5K-10M 270 7087500 4200000 Bilaspur
8.
R-9 1443 16.11.2010 1A-5K-10M 270 7087500 4200000 Bilaspur
9.
R-10 1524 24.11.2010 6K-15M 135 4218750 5000000 Bilaspur
10.
R-11 1575 30.11.2010 1A-4K-1M 241 7500000 4979253 Bilaspur
11.
R-12 1599 02.12.2010 1A-6K-12M 292 7665000 4200000 Bilaspur
12.
R-13 1630 06.12.2010 2A-2K-7M 367 9633750 4200000 Bilaspur
13.
R-14 1641 06.12.2010 4K-10M 90 3000000 5333333 Bilaspur
14.
R-15 1740 15.12.2010 2A-3K-9M 389 12156250 5000000 Bilaspur
15.
R-16 2795 01.03.2011 4K-19M 99 2600000 4202020 Bilaspur
16.
R-17 2796 01.03.2011 5K 100 2625000 4200000 Bilaspur
17.
R-18 2799 01.03.2011 1A-3K- 220.3 6181250 4489332 Bilaspur
18. 0.3M
R-19 2800 01.03.2011 7K-6.8M 146.8 4131250 4502724 Bilaspur
19.
R-20 2802 01.03.2011 6K-14.2M 134.2 3774500 4500149 Bilaspur
20.
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 6 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -7-
other connected cases VILLAGE BINOLA Sr. Exhibit Sale Date Area Land Price Price Per Acre Village No. Nos. Deed Calculated consideration No. in Marlas
1. P-1 9683 03.08.2007 8A-7K-2M 1422 190000000 21378340 Binola P-6 P-7
2. P-2 3145 31.03.2011 15A-6K- 2532 89000000 5624012 Binola 12M
3. P-3 669 26.07.2010 210 - 8,00,000 1,84,38,095 Binola Sq.Yards
4. P-4 1277 21.10.2010 30 - 70,000 1,12,93,333 Binola Sq.Yards
5. P-5 1420 12.11.2010 7M 7 5,00,000 1,14,28,571 Binola
6. P-6 2590 10.02.2011 272 - 6,26,500 1,11,48,014 Binola Sq.Yards
7. R-4 677 27.07.2010 2A-6K- 453 1,13,25,000 40,00,000 Binola 13M
8. R-5 908 03.09.2010 2A 320 80,00,000 40,00,000 Binola
9. R-6 395 04.06.2010 1A-1K- 190 53,00,000 44,63,157 Binola 10M
10. R-7 709 30.07.2010 1A-2K-7M 207 51,75,000 40,00,000 Binola
11. R-8 681 27.07.2010 1A-6K- 293 73,25,000 40,00,000 Binola 13M
12. R-9 678 27.07.2010 2A-6K- 453 1,13,25,000 40,00,000 Binola 13M
13. R-10 680 27.07.2010 9A 1440 3,60,00,000 40,00,000 Binola
14. R-11 679 27.07.2010 9A 1440 3,60,00,000 40,00,000 Binola
4. REASONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE AWARD MADE BY THE REFERENCE COURT IN BOTH THE VILLAGES:
4.1 While firstly deciding the cases arising from village Bilaspur, the RC has recorded the following reasons:-
1. There is no reason to award separate amount for the acquired land abutting National Highway.
2. The sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana cannot be taken into consideration being of lesser price For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 7 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -8-
other connected cases than the amount awarded by the LAC in view of Section 25 of the 1894 Act.
3. Sale Deed No.1641 dated 06.12.2010 (Ex.R-14), but the difference between the area sold and the acquisition is very huge.
4. Sale Deed No.1981 dated 07.01.2011 (Ex.P-3), with respect to the 43 kanals and 9 marlas land sold at the rate of Rs.1,47,29,574/- is comparable.
5. The RC after applying deduction of the 50% towards difference in the area of the acquired land and the exemplar sale deed assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.73,64,787/- per acre.
6. There is no evidence of damages suffered by the landowners on account of severance of the unacquired or remaining land.
4.2 While deciding the cases of village Binola, apart from the reasons recorded by the RC while deciding the cases of village Bilaspur, the RC has held that all the exemplar sale deeds produced by both the parties are not comparable. Thereafter, the RC relied upon its previous award dated 15.01.2016 to assess the same market value, as decided in that award. 4.3 The RC has not recorded any reason whatsoever while observing that there is no such reason for the separate assessment of the market value of the land abutting National Highway No.8 i.e. Delhi-Jaipur Highway. Without any evidence, the RC has observed the same. The RC has also not given any reason before returning the aforesaid findings. Similarly, For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 8 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -9- other connected cases the RC has committed an error in wrongly interpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act, which 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 section 11."
4.3 It has evident from the careful reading of the provision that Section 25 of the 1894 Act, only debars the Court from awarding the market value less than the amount assessed by the LAC. There is no prohibition for the Court to take into consideration, the sale deeds produced by the parties which reflect a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. This matter is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India, 2009(15) SCC 769. The RC has also erred in discarding the sale exemplar Ex.R-14 i.e. Sale Deed No. 1641, dated 06.12.2010, through which 4 kanals and 10 marlas land was sold at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. It may be noted here that the RC without applying its mind has stated that the gap between the area of land sold through the sale deed and the area of acquired land is huge. Similarly, the RC has erred in relying upon the sale exemplar vide Sale Deed No.1981, dated 07.01.2011, with respect to the sale of 43 kanals and 9 marlas, land located in village Binola, sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.8 Crores, at the rate of Rs.1,47,29,574/- per acre. The RC has overlooked that this parcel of land is located on the other side/across the National Highway No.8. The Court has also erred in overlooking that the various sale instances of the various parcels of the land located on the National Highway, which are not only located on the same side of the National Highway alongwith the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -10- other connected cases acquired land but also located near the acquired land.
5. ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PARTIES:
5.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paperbook of both the lead cases in two different batches as well as the record which was requisitioned. 5.2 The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the land is situated near the Industrial Area, Manesar, and is abutting National Highway No.8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway). They further contend that the RC has committed an error while applying 50% deduction on account of dissimilarity in the parcel of land sold in the sale deed exemplars and the acquired land. They contend that the Sale Deed No.1981 is with respect to more than 5 acres of land, which is sufficiently a big parcel of land and, consequently, 50% deduction was not correct. Per contra, Union of India also filed appeals claiming that the assessment made by the RC is excessive.
6. DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT:
6.1 Before proceeding further, it is important to take note of the location of the acquired land. Some part of the acquired land located in village Binola is abutting the National Highway No.8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway). It has been noticed from the careful perusal of the layout plan produced by the respective parties, that approximately 5 acres of the acquired land is located on the National Highway. It may further be significant to note that the acquired land of village Bilaspur is not located on the National Highway. In fact, the acquired land of village Bilaspur is located behind the acquired land of village Binola. The landowners have For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 10 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -11- other connected cases tried to project that Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway is 5kms away from the acquired land. It may be noted here that at that time Kundli-Manesar- Palwal Expressway which is also known as Western Peripheral Expressway was not developed although idea of its development was in the pipeline. Hence, the reliance placed on the aforesaid fact by the landowners is wrong. 6.2 Moreover, it is significant to note that the acquired land in village Binola consists of land comprised in Rectangle No.25, 26, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49 and 50. Whereas, the acquired land of village Bilaspur is located in Rectangle No.4, 9, 10, 11 and 20. At this stage, it is important to explain the expression "rectangle" in the context of the size of the land. 6.3 During the consolidation of the land holdings in the villages/revenue estate under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1953, the total land of the village is divided into Rectangles which consists of 25 acres of land. Each Rectangle is assigned a numerical number starting from 1. As per the practice, which is uniformly followed, Rectangle No.1 is assigned to North Eastern Corner of the village and the assigned number increase in a strip of land having depth, equivalent to 5 acres towards South Eastern boundary of the village, then the assigned numbers keep increasing from the South Eastern side of the village towards the North Eastern side, again, in a strip of land having depth of 5 acres abutting the previous strip of land towards the Western side of the previous strip of land. (In other words, the assigned Rectangle numbers increase in spiral manner similar to the numbers assigned to each box in the game of Snakes and Ladder.) 6.4 On the careful examination of the revenue layout plan of village For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 11 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -12- other connected cases Binola, it is evident that the State has produced a Sale Deed exemplar No.709, dated 30.07.2010, evidencing sale of land, measuring 10 kanals 7 marlas, at the rate of Rs.51,75,000/-. This is approximately five months prior to the date of notification under Section 4. This parcel of the land comprises of Rectangle No.26, Khasra Nos.3 and 4. This land is not only located on the National Highway No.8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway) but is located hardly 3 acres away from the acquired land on the same side of National Highway as the acquired land. The land comprised in Rectangle No.26, Khasra No.4/1/2, is at a distance of 3 acres from the land comprised in Rectangle No.26, Khasra Nos.23 and 24. In other words, a part of the acquired land as well as the land sold vide Sale Deed No.709, are from the land comprised in same rectangle i.e. 26.
6.5 Furthermore, the Union of India has produced sale exemplars showing purchase of land comprised in Rectangle No.14, 15, 16, 17 through the various sale exemplars. This parcel of land is also located on the same side of the National Highway as is the acquired land and is at distance of 6-7 acres from the acquired land.
6.6 This Bench now proceeds to examine the Sale Deed No.1981, dated 07.01.2011, relied upon by the Court which is Ex.P-3. This parcel of land is located on the other side of the National Highway. A major chunk of the aforesaid land is located on the National Highway itself. Furthermore, the Sale Deed No.1981, has been sold by the Premium Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through Sh. Pawan Sachdeva. Smt. Sangeeta Sachdeva, wife of Sh. Pawan Sachdeva, has sold another parcel of land measuring 33 kanal 19 marlas 6 sarsai vide Sale Deed No.1726, on 05.08.2011, at a much lesser For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 12 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -13- other connected cases rate. This parcel of land is located behind the land sold by the Premium Automobile Industries. The purchaser in both the sale deeds is Mitsuba Sical India Ltd.
6.7 Once, the sale exemplar of the land located in the same rectangle is available, the RC committed an error in relying upon the sale exemplar with regard to the parcel of the land which is located across the National Highway. The RC has also overlooked that the sale deed Ex.P-3 is just 15 days before the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. When two corporate entities had entered into a contract of sale and, consequently, the parcel of land is not likely to have been purchased for the purpose of agriculture.
6.8 Similarly, on a careful perusal of the layout plan of village Bilaspur, it is evident that the State of Haryana produced various sale exemplars to prove that the price of the nearby land was in the range of Rs.40 to 50 lacs per acre. It has been noticed that the acquired land of village Bilaspur is from Rectangle No.4, 9, 10, 11 and 20. whereas, the various sale exemplars of the land comprised in Rectangles No.59, 60, 61 and 62 have been produced. These parcels of land are located nearby the acquired land. The land comprised in Rectangle No.42 starts at a distance of 8 acres from the acquired land. Similarly, the land comprised in Rectangle No.43, is also at a distance of 10 acres only from the acquired land. 6.9 Hence, the RC has committed an error in placing reliance on the award with respect to village Bilaspur. 6.10 This Bench now proceeds to examine the contentions of the learned counsel representing the appellants. For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 13 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -14- other connected cases 6.11 The first argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is though convincing and solid, but in absence of the sufficient corroborative evidence, the Court cannot assess the market value merely on the basis that the acquired land is not only located in Tehsil Manesar but also located on the Delhi-Jaipur Highway. 6.12 The next argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is with respect to 50% development cut applied by the RC, which is erroneous. However, this Court has reassessed the market value of the acquired land. This Court, on appreciation of evidence, have chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale deed exemplar, hence, the argument remains academic.
6.13 Now, the question that arises for adjudication is that what should be the appropriate market value of the acquired land. 6.14 As already noticed, there are various sale instances produced by the Union of India to prove that the market value of the acquired land was not more than Rs.52,00,000/- per acre. The LAC while assessing the market value has held that the landowners of the land located on the belt of 2 acres, abutting the National Highway located in village Binola shall be entitled to Rs.65,00,000/- per acre. If we compare this price with the sale exemplar of the land located 3 acres from the acquired land, it is evident that the land has been sold vide Sale Deed No.709 dated 30.07.2010, at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/-.
6.15 Furthermore, as already noticed with respect to the acquired land located in village Bilaspur, the various sale deed exemplars of the land located in Rectangle Nos.42, 43 and 60, which are located nearby have been For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 14 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -15- other connected cases produced, are preferable to assess the market value of the acquired land.
7. DECISION 7.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeals filed by Union of India are allowed, whereas, the appeals filed by the landowners stand dismissed. While setting aside the judgment passed by the RC, the amount assessed by the LAC is found more appropriate and therefore, maintained. 7.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
01st June, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr. Case No. Appellants Respondents
No.
1. RFA No.2116 of Rampal and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
2. 1 RFA No.2638 of Brahmanand (deceased) State of Haryana
2016 through his LRs & others & others
3. RFA No.2639 of Brahmanand (deceased) State of Haryana
2016 through his LRs & others & others
4. RFA No. 2878 of Satbir Singh State of Haryana
2016 & others
5. RFA No. 2875 of Rameshwar and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
6. RFA No. 2877 of Ashok Kumar and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
7. RFA No. 2901 of Inderjeet State of Haryana
2016 & others
8. RFA No. 4480 of Government of India and Adarsh and
2017 another others
9. RFA No. 3092 of Smt. Tarawati State of Haryana
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 15 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -16-
other connected cases
2016 & others
10. RFA No. 3663 of Pyare Lal & others State of Haryana
2016 & others
11. RFA No. 3664 of Balwant and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
12. RFA No. 3665 of Jaipal and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
13. RFA No. 3666 of Karan Singh State of Haryana
2016 & others
14. RFA No. 3667 of Smt. Birmati and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
15. RFA No. 3668 of Jagdev and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
16. RFA No. 3669 of Sanjeet and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
17. RFA No. 3670 of Balwan Singh and State of Haryana
2016 another & others
18. RFA No. 4324 of Ishwar and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
19. RFA No. 572 of Raje Ram @ Raja Ram State of Haryana
2018 @ Jage Ram & others
20. RFA No. 4225 of Government of India and Rameshwar and
2017 another others
21. RFA No. 4101 of Joint Secretary (Training) Rampal and
2017 & another others
22. RFA No. 4323 of Government of India and Karan Singh and
2017 another others
23. RFA No. 4474 of Government of India and Jagdev and others
2017 another
24. RFA No. 4475 of Government of India and Balwan Singh
2017 another and others
25. RFA No. 4476 of Government of India and Balwant and
2017 another others
26. RFA No. 4477 of Government of India and Jaipal and others
2017 another
27. RFA No. 4478 of Government of India and Sanjeet and
2017 another others
28. RFA No. 4479 of Government of India and Smt. Birmati and
2017 another others
29. RFA No. 4658 of Joint Secretary (Training) Brahmanand
2017 (O&M and another (deceased)
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -17- other connected cases through his LRs & others
30. RFA No. 4730 of Joint Secretary (Training) Raje Ram @ 2017 and another Raja Ram @ Jage Ram and others
31. RFA No. 4770 of Government of India and Pappu and others 2017 another
32. RFA No. 4958 of Government of India and Pyare Lal and 2017 (O&M another others
33. RFA No. 4375 of Government of India and Ashok Kumar 2017 another and others
34. RFA No. 4379 of Joint Secretary (Training) Daya Ram and 2017 and another others
35. RFA No. 4380 of Joint Secretary (Training) Smt. Kanta Devi 2017 and another and others
36. RFA No. 4381 of Government of India and Rameshwar and 2017 another others
37. RFA No. 4384 of Joint Secretary (Training) Smt. Rekha and 2017 and another others
38. RFA No. 5122 of Joint Secretary (Training) Raje Ram @ 2017 and another Raja Ram @ Jage Ram and others
39. RFA No. 3004 of M/s T.S. Automach Pvt. State of Haryana 2016 Ltd. & others
40. RFA No. 4390 of Adarsh Kumar and others State of Haryana 2016 & others
41. RFA No. 4957 of Government of India and Ishwar and others 2017 (O&M another
42. RFA No. 4378 of Joint Secretary (Training) Suresh Kumar 2017 and another Mehta and others
43. RFA No. 4298 of Joint Secretary (Training) Sanjay Razdan 2017 and another and others
44. RFA No. 4306 of Union of India P.K.Sharma and 2017 others
45. RFA No. 4382 of Joint Secretary (Training) Manoj Kumar 2017 and another Trehan and others
46. XOBJR No. 84 in Joint Secretary and Manoj Kumar RFA No. 4383 of another and others 2017
47. RFA No. 4383 of Joint Secretary and Manoj Kumar 2017 another and others
48. RFA No. 4501 of Ministry of Defence and M/s NCJ Estate For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 17 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -18-
other connected cases
2017 others Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. & others
49. RFA No. 5123 of Government of India and Surajbhan and
2017 another others
50. RFA No. 4503 of Joint Secretary (Training) Brahmanand
2017 and another (deceased)
through his LRs
and others
51. RFA No. 3093 of Kanta Devi and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
52. RFA No. 3094 of Smt. Rekha and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
53. RFA No. 3095 of Hanuman State of Haryana
2016 & others
54. RFA No. 3096 of Dharmender Kumar State of Haryana
2016 Tayal and another & others
55. RFA No. 3733 of Pyare Lal and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
56. RFA No. 3734 of M/s Vibrant Resorts & State of Haryana
2016 Enterainment Pvt. Ltd. & others
57. RFA No. 3750 of Ratan Singh and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
58. RFA No. 3751 of Ratan Singh and others State of Haryana
2016 & others
59. RFA No. 3752 of Daya Ram and another State of Haryana
2016 & others
60. RFA No. 3753 of Bala Ram since deceased State of Haryana
2016 through his LRs and & others
others
61. RFA No. 3754 of Bala Ram since deceased State of Haryana
2016 through his LRs and & others
others
62. RFA No. 3788 of Jasbir State of Haryana
2016 & others
63. XOBJR No. 19-C1- Government of India and Smt.Bimla Yadav
2018 in RFA No. another and others
4325 of 2017
64. RFA No. 4325 of Government of India and Smt.Bimla Yadav
2017 another and others
65. RFA No. 4763 of M/s Passion Realtech State of Haryana
2016 Private Limited & others
66. RFA No. 111 of 2017 Ishwar and others State of Haryana
& others
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 18 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -19- other connected cases
67. RFA No. 816 of 2017 Suresh Kumar Mehta and State of Haryana another & others
68. RFA No. 2511 of Pradeep Krishna State of Haryana 2017 Chaturvedi & others
69. RFA No. 573 of 2018 Raje Ram alias Raja Ram State of Haryana alias Jage Ram & others
70. RFA No. 699 of 2018 Mrs Mamta Gupta State of Haryana & others
71. RFA No. 1899 of Dinesh State of Haryana 2018 & others
72. RFA No. 4046 of Joint Secretary (Training) Smt. Tarawati 2017 and another and others
73. RFA No. 4158 of Joint Secretary (Training) Mrs. Mamta 2017 and another Gupta and others
74. RFA No. 4159 of Joint Secretary (Training) Bala Ram 2017 and another (deceased) through his LRs and others
75. RFA No. 4190 of Joint Secretary (Training) Sh. Pradeep 2017 and another Krishna Chaturvedi and others
76. XOBJR No. 16-C1- Government of India and Smt. Premwati 2018 in RFA No. another and others 4191 of 2017
77. RFA No. 4191 of Government of India and Smt. Premwati 2017 another and others
78. RFA No. 4224 of Joint Secretary (Training) Sanjeev Kumar 2017 and another and others
79. RFA No. 4294 of Joint Secretary (Training) Inderjeet and 2016 and another others
80. RFA No. 4299 of Government of India and M/s Passion Real 2017 another Tech Pvt. Ltd.
and others
81. RFA No. 4300 of Joint Secretary (Training) Bala Ram 2017 and another (deceased) through LRs
82. RFA No. 4301 of Government of India and Satbir Singh and 2017 another others
83. RFA No. 4302 of Government of India and M/s Vibrant 2017 another Resorts and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd and For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 19 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -20- other connected cases others
84. RFA No. 4303 of Government of India and Pyare Lal and 2017 another others
85. RFA No. 4304 of Joint Secretary (Training) Rattan Singh and 2017 and another others
86. RFA No. 4305 of Joint Secretary (Training) M/s T.S. 2017 and another Automach Pvt.
Limited & others
87. RFA No. 4322 of Government of India and Ishwar and others 2017 another
88. XOBJR No. 19-C1- Government of India and Smt. Bimla 2018 RFA No. 4325 another Yadav and others of 2017
89. RFA No. 4325 of Government of India and Smt. Bimla 2017 another Yadav and others
90. RFA No. 4326 of Joint Secretary (Training) Dharmender 2017 and another Kumar Tayal and others
91. RFA No. 4327 of Joint Secretary (Training) Dinesh and others 2017 and another
92. XOBJR No.3-C1- Joint Secretary (Training) Suman Raheja 2018 in RFA No. and another and others 4328 of 2017
93. RFA No. 4328 of Joint Secretary (Training) Suman Raheja 2017 and another and others
94. RFA No. 4329 of Joint Secretary (Training) Hanuman and 2017 and another others
95. RFA No. 4330 of Joint Secretary (Training) Jagbir and others 2017 and another
96. RFA No. 4331 of Joint Secretary (Training) Rattan Singh & 2017 and another others
97. RFA No. 4341 of Joint Secretary (Training) Bala Ram (Since 2017 and another Deceased) through LRs and others
98. RFA No. 4374 of Joint Secretary (Training) Inderjeet & 2017 and another others
99. RFA No. 4473 of Government of India and Dharmender and 2017 another others
100. RFA No. 1440 of Rameshwar & others Anuradha & 2017 others
101. XOBJR No.17-C1- Government of India and Sunita Saini and 2018 in RFA No. another others For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 20 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 ::: RFA-2116-2016 (O&M) and -21- other connected cases 4439 of 2017
102. RFA No. 4439 of Government of India and Sunita Saini and 2017 another others (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-2116-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 21 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2022 00:20:35 :::