Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljeet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 3 February, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: 3.2.2010
1) R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 (O&M)
Daljeet Singh .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
2) R.F.A.No.4779 of 2001
Ashima and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
3) R.F.A.No.4780 of 2001
Arunjeet Singh .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
4) R.F.A.No.4982 of 2001
Gopi Ram and another ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
5) R.F.A.No.5131 of 2001
Savatantar Kumar .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
6) R.F.A.No.5132 of 2001
Ram Avtar .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
7) R.F.A.No.5133 of 2001
Subhash Chand and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 2
8) R.F.A.No.5134 of 2001
Baldeva .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
9) R.F.A.No.5146 of 2001
Gauri Shankar .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
10) R.F.A.No.5147 of 2001
Omkar Singh and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana .... Respondent
11) R.F.A.No.5148 of 2001
Ishwar Chand Gupta .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
12) R.F.A.No.5162 of 2001
Pawan Kumar .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
13) R.F.A.No.5163 of 2001
Uma Rani .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
14) R.F.A.No.5183 of 2001
Mohinder Singh .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 3
15) R.F.A.No.5184 of 2001
Sardari Lal (deceased)
through LRs and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
16) R.F.A. No.5185 of 2001
Ganga Ram (deceased)
through LRs and another .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
17) R.F.A. No.5186 of 2001
Fateh Singh Saini .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
18) R.F.A.No.5187 of 2001
Banarsi Lal and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
19) R.F.A.No.5188 of 2001
Ram Lal .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
20) R.F.A.No.5189 of 2001
Suraj Parkash .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
21) R.F.A.No.5190 of 2001
Virender Kumar .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 4
22) R.F.A.No.5191 of 2001
Subhash Chand .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
23) R.F.A.No.5192 of 2001
Rajinder Singh .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
24) R.F.A.No.5193 of 2001
Jai Kishan .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
25) R.F.A.No.5352 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Suresh Kumar and others .... Respondents
26) R.F.A.No.5353 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Rajinder Dhanda .... Respondent
27) R.F.A.No.5354 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ganga Ram and another .... Respondents
28) R.F.A.No.5355 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Sardari Lal and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 5
29) R.F.A.No.5356 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Hawa Singh and others .... Respondents
30) R.F.A.No.5357 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Banarsi Lal and others .... Respondents
31) R.F.A.No.5358 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Roop Chand (deceased)
through LRs .... Respondents
32) R.F.A.No.5359 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ashima and others .... Respondents
33) R.F.A.No.5360 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Virender Kumar .... Respondent
34) R.F.A.No.5361 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Himat Singh .... Respondent
35) R.F.A.No.5362 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Jai Kishan (deceased)
through LRs .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 6
36) R.F.A.No.5363 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Raj Pal .... Respondent
37) R.F.A.No.5364 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Daljeet Singh .... Respondent
38) R.F.A.No.5365 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ram Avtar .... Respondent
39) R.F.A.No.5366 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ram Kumar and others .... Respondents
40) R.F.A.No.5367 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ramesh and another .... Respondents
41) R.F.A.No.5368 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Umesh Kumar Bagra and another .... Respondents
42) R.F.A.No.5369 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Pawan Kumar .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 7
43) R.F.A.No.5370 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Rajinder Singh .... Respondent
44) R.F.A.No.5371 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Uma Rani .... Respondent
45) R.F.A.No.5372 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Mohinder Devi (deceased)
through LRs and others .... Respondents
46) R.F.A.No.5373 of 2001
X.Obj. No. 6-CI of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Vidya Devi .... Respondent
47) R.F.A.No.5374 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Sawantantar Kumar .... Respondent
48) R.F.A.No.5375 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ram Phal Singh and another .... Respondents
49) R.F.A.No.5376 of 2001
and X.Obj. No. 5-CI of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Shanti Devi and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 8
50) R.F.A.No.5377 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Subhash Chand .... Respondent
51) R.F.A.No.5378 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Rameshwar Lal .... Respondent
52) R.F.A.No.5379 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Arunjeet Singh .... Respondent
53) R.F.A.No.5380 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Gopi Ram and another ... Respondents
54) R.F.A.No.5381 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Shri. Ram Lal .... Respondent
55) R.F.A.No.5382 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Bohti Devi and others .... Respondents
56) R.F.A.No.5383 of 2001 and
X.Obj. No. 4-CI of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Hans Raj and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 9
57) R.F.A.No.5384 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Kuldeep Singh and another .... Respondents
58) R.F.A.No.5385 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ramesh ... Respondent
59) R.F.A.No.5387 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Satinder and others .... Respondents
60) R.F.A.No.5388 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Pawan Kumar .... Respondent
61) R.F.A.No.5389 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ramphal Malik .... Respondent
62) R.F.A.No.5390 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Baldeva .... Respondent
63) R.F.A.No.5391 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Fateh Singh Saini .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 10
64) R.F.A.No.5392 of 2001
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ishwar Chand Gupta .... Respondent
65) R.F.A.No.5463 of 2001
Smt. Mohinder Devi and others ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
66) R.F.A.No.5481 of 2001
Jai Bhagwan and others .... Appellants
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
67) R.F.A.No.5517 of 2001
Umesh Kumar Bogra and another .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
68) R.F.A.No.5567 of 2001
Suraj Mal and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
69) R.F.A.No.5568 of 2001
Ram Phal Singh and another .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
70) R.F.A.No.5734 of 2001
Chhotan and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 11
71) R.F.A.No.5735 of 2001
Pirthi and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
72) R.F.A.No.5790 of 2001
Ram Kumar and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
73) R.F.A.No.5794 of 2001
Charan Singh .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
74) R.F.A.No.83 of 2002
Daya Nand Khurana and others .... Appellants
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
75) R.F.A.No.86 of 2002
Ranbir Singh and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
76) R.F.A.No.88 of 2002
Harbans Lal Khurana .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
77) R.F.A.No.89 of 2002
Raj Kumari .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 12
78) R.F.A.No.90 of 2002
Vinod Kumar .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
79) R.F.A.No.126 of 2002
Smt. Savitri Devi and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
80) R.F.A.No.129 of 2002
Smt. Inderjit and another .... Appellants
vs.
The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
81) R.F.A.No.210 of 2002
Ram Phal Malik .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
82) R.F.A.No.233 of 2002
Smt. Sumitra Chaudhry and another .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
83) R.F.A.No.234 of 2002
Raj Pal .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
84) R.F.A.No.315 of 2002
X. Obj. No. 14-CI of 2003
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Parthi Singh .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 13
85) R.F.A.No.316 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Subhash Chand and others .... Respondents
86) R.F.A.No.317 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Mohinder Singh .... Respondent
87) R.F.A.No.318 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Suraj Prakash .... Respondent
88) R.F.A.No.319 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Prem Singh (deceased)
through LRs and others .... Respondent
89) R.F.A.No.393 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Vinod Kumar .... Respondent
90) R.F.A.No.394 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Harbans Lal Khurana .... Respondent
91) R.F.A.No.395 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Raj Kumari .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 14
92) R.F.A.No.396 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Umed Singh .... Respondent
93) R.F.A.No.397 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
M/s Ganga Enterprises .... Respondent
94) R.F.A.No.398 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Sh. Suresh Kumar .... Respondent
95) R.F.A.No.399 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Mohan Lal .... Respondent
96) R.F.A.No.400 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Inderjit and another .... Respondents
97) R.F.A.No.401 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellant
vs.
Sh. Daljit Singh and others .... Respondents
98) R.F.A.No.402 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Chander Parbha and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 15
99) R.F.A.No.403 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Ranbir Singh and others .... Respondents
100) R.F.A.No.423 of 2002
Gram Panchayat Malik Ugra Kheri .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
101) R.F.A.No.424 of 2002
Gram Panchayat Ugra Kheri .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
102) R.F.A.No.614 of 2002
Randhir Singh .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
103) R.F.A.No.629 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Suraj Mal and others .... Respondents
104) R.F.A.No.682 of 2002
M/s Punsons Spinners and others .... Appellants
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
105) R.F.A.No.684 of 2002
Baldev Raj and others .... Appellants
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 16
106) R.F.A.No.685 of 2002
Ashok Khurana .... Appellant
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
107) R.F.A.No.686 of 2002
Raj Pal .... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
108) R.F.A.No.687 of 2002
Satinder and others .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
109) R.F.A.No.688 of 2002
Ramesh and another .... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
110) R.F.A.No.693 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Chhotan and others .... Respondents
111) R.F.A.No.728 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Hargobind .... Respondent
112) R.F.A.No.901 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Daya Nand Khurrana .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 17
113) R.F.A.No.902 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Jai Bhagwan and others .... Respondents
114) R.F.A.No.903 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
M/s Punsons Spinners and others .... Respondents
115) R.F.A.No.904 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Saneh Lata and others .... Respondents
116) R.F.A.No.905 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Kamla Devi .... Respondent
117) R.F.A.No.906 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Gopi Chand and others .... Respondents
118) R.F.A.No.910 of 2002
The State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Om Parkash .... Respondent
119) R.F.A.No.911 of 2002
The State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Bilas Raj .... Respondent
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 18
120) R.F.A.No.912 of 2002
State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Gauri Shankar .... Respondent
121) R.F.A.No.913 of 2002
The State of Haryana and another .... Appellants
vs.
Rajinder Kumar and others .... Respondents
122) R.F.A.No.914 of 2002
State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Sh. Rakesh Kumar and others .... Respondents
123) R.F.A.No.915 of 2002
State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Rajbir Singh and others .... Respondents
124) R.F.A.No.916 of 2002
State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Inder Singh .... Respondent
125) R.F.A.No.917 of 2002
The State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Ashok Kumar .... Respondent
126) R.F.A.No.918 of 2002
State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Ram Phal and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 19
127) R.F.A.No.919 of 2002
State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Tilak Raj .... Respondent
128) R.F.A.No.920 of 2002
State of Haryana and another . ... Appellants
vs.
Prem Chand and others .... Respondents
129) R.F.A.No.938 of 2002
Kuldeep Singh and another ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
130) R.F.A.No.940 of 2002
Rajender Dhanda and another ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
131) R.F.A.No.950 of 2002
Ram Phal and others ... Appellants
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
132) R.F.A.No.951 of 2002
Ram Phal and others ... Appellants
vs.
Land Acquisition Collector and another .... Respondents
133) R.F.A.No.991 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Indero and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 20
134) R.F.A.No.992 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Harbhajan Singh and others .... Respondents
135) R.F.A.No.995 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Joginder Singh .... Respondent
136) R.F.A.No.996 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Randhir Singh and others .... Respondents
137) R.F.A.No.997 of 2002
X.Obj No. 8-CI of 2003 (O&M)
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Jhangi Ram .... Respondent
138) R.F.A.No.998 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Attar Singh .... Respondent
139) R.F.A.No.999 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Zile Singh and others .... Respondents
140) R.F.A.No.1000 of 2002
The State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Ram Chander and others .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 21
141) R.F.A.No.1002 of 2002
X.Obj. No. 42-CI of 2003
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Kashmiri Lal .... Respondent
142) R.F.A.No.1003 of 2002
State of Haryana and others ... Appellants
vs.
Avinash Chander .... Respondent
143) R.F.A.No.1004 of 2002
State of Haryana ... Appellant
vs.
Sunder Lal Aggarwal and another .... Respondents
144) R.F.A.No.1024 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Sandeep Kumar .... Respondent
145) R.F.A.No.1025 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Ram Phal and others .... Respondents
146) R.F.A.No.1199 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Joginder Singh and others .... Respondents
147) R.F.A.No.1238 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Lajpat Rai Khurana (deceased)
through his LR .... Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 22
148) R.F.A.No.1239 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Smt. Savitri Devi and others .... Respondents
149) R.F.A.No.1428 of 2002
Rajbir Singh and others ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
150) R.F.A.No.1434 of 2002
Smt. Sneh Lata and others ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
151) R.F.A.No.1435 of 2002
Indro Devi and others . ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
152) R.F.A.No.1436 of 2002
Omkar Singh and others . ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
153) R.F.A.No.1582 of 2002
State of Haryana and another ... Appellants
vs.
Ashok Kumar and another ...Respondents
154) R.F.A.No.1845 of 2002
Ram Chander and others . ... Appellants
vs.
The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 23
155) R.F.A.No.2014 of 2002
Ashok Kumar and another . ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
156) R.F.A.No.2508 of 2002
Smt. Bohti Devi and others . ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
157) R.F.A.No.3145 of 2002
Joginder Singh ... Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
158) R.F.A.No.4195 of 2002
Bajinder Singh & others ... Appellants
vs.
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Mr. Yash Paul Malik, Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Mr.
Sourav Khurana, Mr. D.S. Malik, Mr. Pritam Saini, Mr. Ashwani
Kumar Bura Advocate for Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocates for the
land-owners.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG Haryana.
RAJESH BINDAL, J
****
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 158 appeals and six cross- objections arising out of same acquisition.
2. The facts have been extracted from RFA No. 4778 of 2001.
3. Briefly the facts are that vide notification dated 2.3.1993 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894( for short, 'the Act') State of Haryana acquired land in the revenue estates of villages Taraf Afgan, Malik Ugra Kheri and Ugra Kheri for public purpose namely for development and utilization of land as residential, industrial and commercial area for Sector-24, Panipat. The same was followed by notification dated 1.3.94 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 24 Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') awarded different rates for the land pertaining to different villages, detail of which is given as under:-
Sr. Name of Village Kind of Land Rate (per acre)
No.
1 Taraf Afgan Chahi Rs. 6,00,000/-
2 Malik Ugra Kheri Chahi Rs. 4,00,000/-
Barani Rs. 3,50,000/-
Gair Mumkin Rs. 2,75,000/-
3 Ugra Kheri Chahi Rs. 4,00,000/-
Barani Rs. 3,50,000/-
Gair Mumkin Rs. 2,75,000/-
4. Dissatisfied with the award the land owners filed objections, which were referred to learned Court below who vide judgment dated July 31, 2001 determined Rs. 178.40 per square yard as the amount of compensation payable for the entire land. Aggrieved against the award of learned Court below, the landowners as well as the State are in appeal before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the land in question is part of National Capital Region which is located after crossing Panipat City towards Delhi. The entire area in the vicinity had already been developed. Urban Estate Sectors 11, 12, 25 Part II are adjoining the acquired land. On one side of the acquired land is Sanoli road which links Panipat with Kairana (Uttar Pradesh). The land had great potential for being used for residential and commercial purposes. In fact it is part of the controlled area.
6. As far as evidence in support of the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned learned counsel for the land owners relied upon sale deeds Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. Sale deed Ex.P2 was registered on December 2, 1987 whereby one Kanal of land was sold for Rs. 1,50,000/-. In case the increase @ 12% per annum is granted thereon till the acquisition of the land in question, the value thereof comes out to Rs. 400/- per square yard. Sale deeds Ex.P3 and P4 were registered on May 21, 1992 for two kanals of land each at an average price of Rs. 13 lacs per acre. After adding increase @ 12% per annum thereon the value on the date of acquisition comes out to Rs. 295/- per square yard. Another reliance was placed upon document Ex.P11, the broacher issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, on November 3, 1999 for sale of developed plots in Sector 24, Urban Estate, Panipat, for which the land in question was acquired. The price range was Rs. 2,025/- to 2,700/- per square yard.
7. Besides the aforesaid evidence learned counsel for land owners further referred to various judicial pronouncements determining the compensation for the acquired land in Panipat starting from the acquisition of land for development as Sectors 11, 12 and 25 (Phase-II) vide notification dated December 15, 1982, wherein a Division Bench of this Court in 1997 (2) P.L.R. R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 25 303 Jogi Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana had determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 80/- per square yard. Another judgment relied upon is in RFA No. 19 of of 1995 Gulab Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another decided on July 24, 2008, for acquisition of land for development as Sector 25 Part-II, vide notification dated October 23, 1989 this Court, determined the compensation at Rs. 147/- per square yard. It is stated that the location of Sector 25 Part II is just adjoining Sector 24 for which the land in question has been acquired. Reference was also made to order dated May 29, 2009 passed in Review application No.6- CI of 2008 in RFA No. 363 of 2005 Ram Chand @ Ram Chander (since deceased) through LR Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, regarding acquisition of land vide notification dated September 12, 2001, for development as Sector 29, Part II, wherein this Court determined the compensation at Rs. 332.21 per square yard.
8. Further reference was made to acquisition carried out towards Ambala side from Panipat for development as Sectors 13 and 17 vide notification dated February 23, 1989, whereby this Court vide judgment dated August 31, 2007, in Review application No. 31-CI of 2007 in RFA No. 1379 of 1994 Nand Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, determined the compensation at Rs. 139/- per square yard. In the vicinity of the aforesaid Sectors vide notification dated March 2, 1993, (the same date on which the land in question was acquired) acquisition was carried out for development as Sector 18. In Review Application No. 84-CI of 2007 in RFA No. 2600 of 2001 Bahadur Chand Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 5.8.2008 this Court determined the compensation therefor at Rs. 206/- per square yard.
9. Referring to the aforesaid judicial precedents as piece of evidence for the purpose of determination of compensation for the acquired land learned counsel for the land owners submitted that as per their information all the aforesaid judgments have been accepted by the State and no appeal has been filed. In fact barring the acquisition for Sector 29 Part II where the judgment of this Court is dated May 29, 2009, in all other cases the land owners had infact been disbursed the amount of enhanced compensation.
10. To show the location of the acquired land which was for the purpose of development as Sector 24, Plan Annexure A-2 has been produced along with the application for additional evidence. Notice of the application was issued to the State to which no reply has been filed. A perusal of the plan shows that the same is photocopy of the final development plan for controlled area-I and additional controlled area-II and III 2021 AD. Considering the aforesaid fact, the site plan was perused for the purpose of taking into consideration the location of the acquired land and others sectors.
11. Sectors 17 and 18 are located on G.T. Road before existing Panipat town, if we proceed from Ambala to Delhi. Sector 13 is located behind Sector 17. If we R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 26 cross Panipat town towards Delhi Sector 25 Part-I is located on G.T. Road. Sector 25 Part II and Sectors 11 and 12 are located behind. Sector 24 is behind Sector 12. On a specific query by the Court as to whether the land pertaining to Sector 29 Part-I, part of which is connecting the G.T. Road, Sector 28 which is behind Sector 25 Part II and Sectors 22 and 23, which are adjoining Sector 24, has been acquired, the answer was in negative. Beyond Sector 29 Part-I is Sector 29, Part II which is not located on G.T. Road. The land for the same was acquired on September 12, 2001.
12. Referring to the aforesaid material learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the best precedent, which can be relied upon in the present case is the acquisition of land for Sector 25 Part II as the location of the same is ad-joining Sector 24, for which the land in question was acquired. This Court in Gulab Singh's case (supra) had determined the compensation payable for the land acquired for the purpose at Rs. 147/- per square yard. The same can very well be taken as base value and increase @ 12% per annum be granted thereon for the time gap in two notifications.
13. To butteress this argument it was submitted that infact Jogi Ram's case (supra) where the acquisition was for development as Sectors 11, 12 and 25 (Phase-II), adjoining Sector 24, was taken as base for determining the compensation for the land acquired in all the aforesaid cases whether the same was towards Ambala side from Panipat or towards Delhi.
14. Another argument raised by the land owners was that it is a case where there were successive notifications. Earlier the notification for the acquisition of same land was issued in the year 1986 which proceedings were allowed to be lapsed in the year 1989. Thereafter it was acquired vide notification dated March 2, 1993. On account of damages suffered by the land owners they are entitled to be compensated in terms of Section 48 of the Act.
15. IN RFA Nos. 938 and 940 of 2002 learned counsel for the appellant raised additional arguments stating that vide two sale deeds dated 21.5.1992, for two kanals each the land was purchased by the appellants at an average price of Rs. 267/- per square yard. The same having been acquired, the land owners are entitled to actual amount spent by them on purchase of land along with increase @ 12 % per annum for the time gap till the acquisition and also the amount of stamp duty paid.
16. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence led by the State in the form of 19 sale deeds produced on record has been totally ignored by the learned Court below. In fact the same totally justified the award of the Collector. Reliance on the judgments for determination of compensation for the acquired land has to be the last resort that too can be in the absence of any evidence in the form of sale deeds. In the present case when the sale deeds are there on record there is no question of reliance upon the judicial R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 27 precedents being cited by the land owners.
17. It was further submitted that the first acquisition in the area of village Taraf Rajputan of Taraf Afghana was carried out vide notification dated August 30, 1977. A division Bench of this Court in AIR 1989 Punjab 27 Hukam Chand and others Vs. Haryana State had determined the compensation payable for the aforesaid acquisition at Rs. 39/- per square yard. It was submitted that in Jogi Ram's case (supra) where the acquisition under consideration was for Sectors 11, 12 and 25 (Phase-II), vide notification dated December 15, 1982, though the reliance was placed on the value determined in Hukam Chand's case (supra), but the same was taken at Rs. 42/- per square yard as against Rs. 39/- per square yard determined therein, consequently there occurred error in determination of compensation and in all subsequent acquisitions Jogi Ram's case (supra) was made the basis. If that error is corrected even if the judicial precedent is relied upon the amount of compensation as has been determined by the Learned Court below calls for reduction. The amount of compensation in that eventuality will come out to Rs. 109.20 per square yard.
18. Reference was also made to another judgment of this Court in RFA No. 3719 of 1999 Hukam Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 5.11.2008 where the issue under consideration was for acquisition of land of village Sithana. In the aforesaid case this Court had remanded the matter back to the learned Court below for fresh consideration as the evidence led by the State had not been considered. The location of village Sithana is towards Ambala from Panipat though on the other side as compared to Sectors 13, 17 and 18.
19. Finally it was submitted that as in all the judicial precedents sought to be relied upon by the land owners the reliance is on valuation determined for Sectors 11, 12 and 25 (Phase-II) which was made vide notification dated December 15, 1982 and a Division Bench of this Court in Jogi Ram's case (supra) had determined the compensation at Rs. 80/- per square yard. Even if increase @ 12 % per annum is granted thereon for the time gap in the notification the value would come out to Rs. 178/- per square yard which has already been granted by the learned Court below.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.
The acquisition in the present case is for the purpose of development as Sector 24 Urban Estate Panipat. The land pertains to villages Taraf Afgan, Malik Ugra Kheri and Ugra Kheri.
Regarding Valuation of Land:
21. As far as the location is concerned Sectors 17 and 18 are located on G.T. Road before existing Panipat town if we proceed from Ambala to Delhi. Sector 13 is located behind Sector 17. If we cross Panipat town, towards Delhi Sector 25 Part-I is located on G.T. Road. Sector 25 Part II and Sectors 11 and 12 R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 28 are located behind. Sector 24 is behind Sector 12. On a specific query by the Court as to whether the land pertaining to Sector 29 Part-I part of which is connecting the G.T. Road Sector 28 which is behind Sector 25 Part II and Sectors 22 and 23, which are adjoining Sector 24, the land has been acquired, the answer was in negative. Beyond Sector 29 Part-I is Sector 29, Part II which is not located on G.T. Road. The land for the same was acquired on September 12, 2001.
22. First acquisition in the area was carried out for development as Sectors 11, 12 and 25 (Phase-II) way back on December 15, 1982 for which this Court in Jogi Ram's case (supra) had determined the compensation at Rs. 80/- per square yard. Sector 24 for which the land in question was acquired is located just behind Sector 12. Another factor which is evident from development plan Annexure A-2 is that Sector 24 abuts Panipat Sonali Road which links Panipat with Kairana (U.P.). Existing Panipat town is adjoining Sector 11. Sector 29 Part II is located further towards Delhi side from Panipat and is not located on G.T. Road. This Court in various judgments had determined the compensation payable for the acquisition of land on both sides of existing Panipat town relying upon Jogi Ram's case (supra) the same being:-
Sr. No. Date of Sectors Citation Amount
Acquisitio
n
1 15/12/1982 Sectors 11,12 1997 (2) PLR 303, Jogi Rs. 80/- per and25(Phase- Ram and Others Vs. State square yard II) of Haryana 2 30/8/1977 Taraf AIR 1989 Punjab 27, Rs. 39/- per Rajputan of Hukam Chand and others square yard Taraf Afghana Vs. Haryana State 3 23/10/1989 Sector 25 Part RFA No. 19 of 1995 Gulab Rs. 147/- per II Singh Vs. State of Haryana square yard and another decided on July 24, 2008.
4 12/09/01 Sector 29 Part Review application No.6-CI Rs. 332.31 per
II of 2008 in RFA No. 363 of square yard
2005 Ram Chand @ Ram
Chander (since deceased)
through LR Raghbir Singh
Vs. State of Haryana and
others. Decided on
29.5.2009
5 23/2/1989 Sectors 13 Review Application No. 31- Rs. 139/- per
and 17 CI of 2007 in RFA No. square yard
1379 of 1994, Nand Lal
and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another
Decided August 31, 2007.
R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 29
Sr. No. Date of Sectors Citation Amount
Acquisitio
n
6 02/03/93 Sector 18 R.A. No. 84-CI of 2007 in Rs. 206/- per
RFA No. 2600 of 2001 square yard
Bahadur Chand Vs. State
of Haryana and another
Decided on 5.8.2008.
23. The arguments of learned counsel for land owners that in all the aforesaid cases except acquisition for Sector 29 Part II the amount of compensation as had been determined by this Court has already been disbursed to the land owners and no appeal was preferred by the State is not disputed.
24. Considering the aforesaid fact in my opinion it would be quite safe to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Gulab Singh's case (supra) where the compensation determined was for acquisition of land of Sector 25 Part II vide notification dated October 23, 1989 and base of Rs. 147/- per square yard shall be taken for granting further increase @ 12 % per annum, till the acquisition of land in the present case. Adding 40% thereon for the time gap of three years and four months, the amount of compensation shall come out to Rs. 205.80 per square yard, which is rounded to Rs. 206/- per square yard.
25. I do not find any weight in the arguments of learned counsel for the State that the base for the purpose of determination of compensation for the land in question should be taken as Jogi Ram's case (supra). In fact earlier also this Court in Bahadur Chand's case (supra) and Ram Chand alias Ram Chander's case (supra) had relied upon Gulab Singh's case (supra) for determining the compensation payable for the acquisition of land. The compensation even for acquisition of land for Sector 18 which was acquired vide notification dated March 21, 1993 the same date on which the land in question was acquired, this Court in Bahadur Chand's case (supra) had determined the compensation at Rs. 206/- per square yard.
26. Accordingly for the reasons mentioned above the value of the land acquired in the present case is determined at Rs. 206/- per square yard. The award of learned Court below is modified to that extent. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefit thereon under the Act. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed.
Regarding Damages under Section 48 of the Act:
27. As far as arguments raised by learned counsel for land owners regarding payment of damages under section 48 of the Act is concerned, I do not find any merit in the submission made. To appreciate the contention it would be relevant to extract the provisions of Section 48 of the Act which are as under:-
48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed.-(1) Except in R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 30 the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act relating to the said land.
(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far as may be, to the determination of the compensation payable under this section.
28. A perusal of Section 48(2) of the Act as referred to above shows that in case where Government withdraws from any acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of compensation due for the damages suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings thereunder. The amount of damages so assessed is payable to person interested along with the costs if any assessed in prosecution of the proceedings under the Act. It cannot be disputed that the acquisition proceedings which were initiated earlier and were lapsed were independent of the acquisition proceedings in the present case. Further it has not come on record as to whether it was on account of some lapse/inaction or policy decision on part of the Government that the earlier acquisition proceedings lapsed or it was on account of the objections raised by the land owners having been accepted by the Government that the acquisition process was not completed. Arguments of learned counsel for land owners to the effect that in the present acquisition proceedings which were initiated with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the act on 2.3.1993 the alleged damage suffered by them on account of some acquisition proceedings which were initiated in the year 1986 and lapsed in the year 1989, be assessed in the present proceedings is totally misconceived. No judgment in support of the arguments that the claim on account of any alleged damage suffered on account of earlier acquisition having lapsed can be claimed in case the same land is acquired subsequently at any time.
29. Still further no evidence has been referred to by the land owners which could justify their claim for any alleged damage suffered on account of earlier acquisition proceedings having lapsed. Accordingly, the claim for damages under Section 48 of the Act is dismissed.
R.F.A. Nos. 938 and 940 of 2002
30. As far as claim of land owners in aforesaid appeals is concerned, the stand of the appellants is that they had purchased the land in question vide sale deeds registered on May 21, 1992, Ex. P3 and P4, whereby two kanals land R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 31 each was purchased for Rs. 3.25 lacs in both the sale deeds. The acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 2.3.1993. The genuineness of the sale deeds has not been disputed by the State. The land which was purchased by the appellants herein was acquired subsequently. The land owners besides paying consideration to the vendor had also spent amount on the stamp duty. As to whether the land owners in such an eventuality would be entitled to amount of compensation as has been determined by the Court for the entire big chunk of land, which may be less than the cost of the land owners herein or the land owner is entitled to actual amount spent by him for purchase of the land, is the issue which requires consideration.
31. This Court in RFA No. 1841 of 2000 The State of Haryana Vs. Ujjagar Singh (deceased) through LRs. decided on 16.12.2008, while dealing with an identical proposition opined as under:-
"As far as genuineness of sale deeds (Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/3) is concerned, the same is not disputed by the State. It is also evident on record that the land owners therein had paid more value as compared to the value determined by this Court for acquisition of the land. They cannot be put to loss as payment of less value than what they had spent on the purchase of the property would amount to depriving them from their property without adequate compensation. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to grant them compensation to the tune of amount spent by them granting increase @ 10% per annum thereon. Accordingly, the compensation payable to the land owners of land forming part of sale deeds (Ex. PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2) shall be Rs. 5,625/- per marla, whereas for the land owner in sale deed (Ex.PW4/3), the same shall be Rs. 8,480/- per marla."
32. Similar view was expressed in Gurmukh Singh vs. Punjab State 1987 Recent Revenue Reports 143 and R.F.A. No. 69 of 2000 Ram Kumar (Advocate) Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 22.9.2008. RFA No. 1177 of 1991 Dhandu Ram and another Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 30.10.2008.
33. Considering the aforesaid proposition of law and in the absence of any contrary view cited by learned counsel for the State and the genuineness of the sale deeds being not in dispute in my opinion, the land owners herein cannot be made to suffer and are entitled to actual amount which they have spent for the purchase of land where the compensation assessed finally is found to be less as compared to the same.
34. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellants in aforesaid appeals shall be entitled to actual costs paid by them for purchase of land plus the stamp duty affixed by them on the sale deeds. In addition to that for the time gap in the purchase of land and subsequent acquisition being about 9 months, the land R.F.A.No.4778 of 2001 32 owners in the aforesaid appeals shall also be entitled to increase of 9% for the period on the amount spent by them on purchase of land. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available thereon under the act. The aforesaid appeals are accepted to that extent.
RFA No. 4779 of 200135. In the present case the land owners have filed an application seeking correction in father's name for which supporting evidence has been placed on record. For that the issue is not being finally decided. The applicant- appellant shall be at liberty to raise this issue before the Executing Court and substantiate the claim regarding wrong mentioning of father's name which shall be considered on the basis of material on record.
36. The relief granted to the land owners in this bunch of appeals is summed up as under:-
(i) As far as valuation of entire acquired land is concerned, the same is determined at Rs. 206/- per square yard with all statutory benefits thereon.
(ii)The claim regarding damages on account of severance is rejected.
(iii)The Land owners in RFA Nos. 938 and 940 of 2002 have been held entitled to compensation for the acquired land to the extent, the amount has been spent on the purchase thereof plus 9%, on account of time gap along with statutory benefits.
(iv)Claim regarding damages under Section 48 of the Act is rejected.
37. The appeals and cross-objections are disposed of accordingly.
3.2.2010. (RAJESH BINDAL) Reema JUDGE