Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asa Ram And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 4 July, 2011
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision: July 5, 2011
1. R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001
Asa Ram and others
.....Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
2. R.F.A. No. 258 of 2002
Sunil Gupta and others
.....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondent
3 R.F.A. No. 2317 of 2000
Dhan Singh .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
4. R.F.A. No. 397 of 2001
Rizak Ram deceased through LR .........Appellant
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [2]
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
5. R.F.A. No. 398 of 2001
Parkash deceased through LR and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
6. R.F.A. No. 399 of 2001
Zile Singh deceased through LRs and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
7. R.F.A. No. 400 of 2001
Mir Singh deceased through LRs .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
8. R.F.A. No. 405 of 2001
Sukhdei .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
9. R.F.A. No. 406 of 2001
Kailash Devi and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
10. R.F.A. No. 538 of 2001
Ram Piari and others .........Appellants
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [3]
State of Haryana & Others ....Respondents
11. R.F.A. No. 618 of 2001
Chief Administrator .........Appellant
Vs.
Sukhdei and others ....Respondent
12. R.F.A. No. 677 of 2001
Gram Panchayat, Jatheri .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
13. R.F.A. No. 801 of 2001
Budh Singh and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of HYE.T.C . ......Respondent
14. R.F.A. No. 861 of 2001
Tulsi Ram and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
15. R.F.A. No. 862 of 2001
Munshi Ram .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
16. R.F.A. No. 863 of 2001
Jagjeet Singh .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [4]
17. R.F.A. No. 864 of 2001
Tulsi Ram and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
18. R.F.A. No. 865 of 2001
Dayaram and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
19. R.F.A. No. 866 of 2001
Ami Chand and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
20. R.F.A. No. 867 of 2001
Siri Krishan and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
21. R.F.A. No. 868 of 2001 (O&M)
Smt. Sunheri deceased through LRs and others.........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
22. R.F.A. No. 869 of 2001
Sher Singh and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
23. R.F.A. No. 870 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [5]
Maru Ram and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
24. R.F.A. No. 871 of 2001 (O&M)
Hari Chand .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
25. R.F.A. No. 872 of 2001 (O&M)
Mam Chand and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
26. R.F.A. No. 873 of 2001 (O&M)
Anup Singh and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
27. R.F.A. No. 874 of 2001 (O&M)
Lehli and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
28. R.F.A. No. 875 of 2001 (O&M)
Mahabir and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
29. R.F.A. No. 876 of 2001 (O&M)
Bhopal Singh .........Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [6]
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
30. R.F.A. No. 877 of 2001 (O&M)
Anguri Devi deceased through LRs and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
31. R.F.A. No. 1052 of 2001
Raj Singh .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
32. R.F.A. No. 1657 of 2001 (O&M)
Jogi Ram .........Appellant
Vs.
Hy. State and others ....Respondent
33. R.F.A. No. 1747 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Om Parkash and others ......Respondent
34. R.F.A. No. 1748 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Parkash and others ......Respondent
35. R.F.A. No. 1749 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [7]
Budh Singh and others ......Respondent
36. R.F.A. No. 1750 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Rizak Ram and others ......Respondent
37. R.F.A. No. 1751 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Chand Kaur and others ......Respondent
38. R.F.A. No. 1752 of 2001
Chief Administration, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Gram Panchayat, Vill. Jatheri and others ......Respondent
39. R.F.A. No. 1753 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
M/s Ribbel International Ltd. and another ......Respondent
40. R.F.A. No. 1754 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Zile Singh and others ......Respondent
41. R.F.A. No. 1755 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Dhan Singh and others ......Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [8]
42. R.F.A. No. 1756 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
M/s Modern Straw Board Mills Ltd. & another......Respondent
43. R.F.A. No. 1757 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
Mir Singh and others ......Respondent
44. R.F.A. No. 1758 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills Ltd. and another ......Respondent
45. R.F.A. No. 1759 of 2001
Chief Administrator, Haryana State Market .........Appellant
Vs.
M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills Ltd. and another ......Respondent
46. R.F.A. No. 1831 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Ram Phal and Ors ......Respondents
47. R.F.A. No. 1832 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Jeet Ram and Ors. ......Respondents
48. R.F.A. No. 1833 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [9]
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Jogi Ram and others ......Respondents
49. R.F.A. No. 1834 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Roop Chand and ors. . ......Respondents
50. R.F.A. No. 1835 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Mahabir and Ors . ......Respondents
51. R.F.A. No. 1836 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Ramdiya and anr .......Respondents
52. R.F.A. No. 1837 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Mange Ram and another ......Respondents
53. R.F.A. No. 1838 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Chander and Ors. ......Respondents
54. R.F.A. No. 1839 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [10]
Vs.
Tulsi Ram and ors. ......Respondents
55. R.F.A. No. 1840 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Sunehri and Ors. ......Respondents
56. R.F.A. No. 1841 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh and another ......Respondent
57. R.F.A. No. 1842 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Ami Chand and Ors. ......Respondents
58. R.F.A. No. 1843 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Darya and Ors. ......Respondents
59. R.F.A. No. 1844 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Triton Poultry Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ......Respondents
60. R.F.A. No. 1845 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [11]
Chiranji Lal and another. ......Respondents
61. R.F.A. No. 1846 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Jagroop and Ors. ......Respondents
62. R.F.A. No. 1847 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Ram Bhateri and Ors. ......Respondents
63. R.F.A. No. 1848 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Rajinder and Ors. ......Respondents
64. R.F.A. No. 1849 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Raghbir Singh and anr. ......Respondents
65. R.F.A. No. 1850 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Sunil Gupta and Ors. ......Respondents
66. R.F.A. No. 1851 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Subh Ram and another ......Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [12]
67. R.F.A. No. 1852 of 2001
HISDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Bharpai and Ors. ......Respondents
68. R.F.A. No. 1855 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Dhano Devi widow represented by Krishna & Ors. ......Respondent
69. R.F.A. No. 1856 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Hem Chander and others ......Respondent
70. R.F.A. No. 1857 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Maru Ram and others ......Respondent
71. R.F.A. No. 1858 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Bhim Singh and others ......Respondent
72. R.F.A. No. 1859 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Kanwal Singh deceased through Anguri & Ors.......Respondent
73. R.F.A. No. 1860 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [13]
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Maru Mal and Ors. ......Respondents
74. R.F.A. No. 1861 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Maya Devi and others ......Respondent
75. R.F.A. No. 1862 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Vedo Devi and others ......Respondent
76. R.F.A. No. 1863 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Chandu Lal and others ......Respondent
77. R.F.A. No. 1864 of 2001
H. S. I. D. C. .........Appellant
Vs.
Chander and others ......Respondent
78. R.F.A. No. 1865 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev .........Appellant
Vs.
Dharamvir and others ......Respondent
79. R.F.A. No. 1866 of 2001
H.S.I.D.C. .........Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [14]
Vs.
Mool Chand and Ors. ......Respondents
80. R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Hari Chand and others ......Respondent
81. R.F.A. No. 1868 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Harsarup and Ors. ......Respondents
82. R.F.A. No. 1869 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Chander Bhan and Ors. ......Respondents
83. R.F.A. No. 1870 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Jagjeet Singh and another ......Respondent
84. R.F.A. No. 1871 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Munshi Ram and others ......Respondent
85. R.F.A. No. 1872 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [15]
Sadhu Ram and etc. ......Respondents
86. R.F.A. No. 1873 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Lahri and Ors. ......Respondents
87. R.F.A. No. 1874 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Lakhman and others ......Respondents
88. R.F.A. No. 1875 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Jai Narain and others ......Respondents
89. R.F.A. No. 1876 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Jai Bhagwan and others ......Respondent
90. R.F.A. No. 1877 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Anup Singh and others ......Respondents
91. R.F.A. No. 1878 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Rugan @ Raghunath and Anr. ......Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [16]
92. R.F.A. No. 1879 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Raghunath and other ......Respondents
93. R.F.A. No. 1880 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Jai Narain and another ......Respondents
94. R.F.A. No. 1881 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Sada Ram and another ......Respondents
95. R.F.A. No. 1882 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Asa Ram and others ......Respondents
96. R.F.A. No. 1883 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Ram Bhateri and others ......Respondents
97. R.F.A. No. 1884 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Tulsi Ram and others ......Respondents
98. R.F.A. No. 1885 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [17]
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Daya Ram and others ......Respondent
99. R.F.A. No. 1886 of 2001
Haryana State Ind. Dev. Corp. .........Appellant
Vs.
Jai Narain and others ......Respondent
100. R.F.A. No. 1887 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Daya Nand and another ......Respondent
101. R.F.A. No. 1888 of 2001
HSIDC .......Appellant
Vs.
Gram Panchayat Village Rai and others ......Respondent
102. R.F.A. No. 1889 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Gordhan and others ......Respondent
103. R.F.A. No. 1890 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Bhopal Singh and ors. ......Respondents
104. R.F.A. No. 1891 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [18]
Vs.
Ratni and others ......Respondent
105. R.F.A. No. 1892 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Maha Singh and others .....Respondent
106. R.F.A. No. 1893 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Shiv Narain and anr. ......Respondent
107. R.F.A. No. 1894 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Siri Krishan and others ......Respondent
108. R.F.A. No. 1895 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Lachhmi Narain and others ......Respondent
109. R.F.A. No. 1896 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Vinod Kumar and others ......Respondent
110. R.F.A. No. 1897 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [19]
Hardwari and others ......Respondent
111. R.F.A. No. 1898 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Sabha Chand and others ......Respondent
112. R.F.A. No. 1899 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Kela and others .....Respondent
113. R.F.A. No. 1900 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Shree Chand and others ......Respondent
114. R.F.A. No. 1901 of 2001
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Ram Phal and others ......Respondent
115. R.F.A. No. 1951 of 2001
Sarup Singh deceased through LRs and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
116. R.F.A. No. 1952 of 2001
Jai Narain and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [20]
117. R.F.A. No. 1953 of 2001
Sadhu Ram deceased through LRs and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
118. R.F.A. No. 1954 of 2001
Om Parkash and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
119. R.F.A. No. 1955 of 2001
Jeet Ram and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
120. R.F.A. No. 1956 of 2001
Jagroop Singh and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
121. R.F.A. No. 1957 of 2001
Subh Ram .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
122. R.F.A. No. 1958 of 2001
Vinod Kumar and ors. .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and anr. ......Respondents
123. R.F.A. No. 1959 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [21]
Sada Ram .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
124. R.F.A. No. 1960 of 2001
Raghu Nath and ors. .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
125. R.F.A. No. 1961 of 2001
Ram Diya .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
126. R.F.A. No. 1962 of 2001
Mange Ram deceased through LRs .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
127. R.F.A. No. 1963 of 2001
Deep Chand, deceased through LRs. .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
128. R.F.A. No. 1964 of 2001
Raghbir Singh deceased through LRs .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
129. R.F.A. No. 1965 of 2001
Jai Narain .........Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [22]
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
130. R.F.A. No. 1966 of 2001
Shiv Narain .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
131. R.F.A. No. 1967 of 2001
Rajinder and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
132. R.F.A. No. 1968 of 2001
Ram Phal .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
133. R.F.A. No. 1969 of 2001
Ramesh .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
134. R.F.A. No. 1970 of 2001
Chander Bhan and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [23]
......Respondents
135. R.F.A. No. 1972 of 2001
Roop Chand deceased through LRs .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
136. R.F.A. No. 1973 of 2001
Hem Chander and ors. .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
137. R.F.A. No. 1974 of 2001
Kela and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
138. R.F.A. No. 1975 of 2001
Dharamvir and another .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
139. R.F.A. No. 1976 of 2001
Gordhan deceased through LRs. .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
140. R.F.A. No. 1977 of 2001
Vedo Devi and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [24]
141. R.F.A. No. 1978 of 2001
Jai Bhagwan deceased through LRs .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
142. R.F.A. No. 1979 of 2001
Ram Phal and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
143. R.F.A. No. 1980 of 2001
Bharpai deceased through LRs and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
144. R.F.A. No. 1981 of 2001
Rugan @ Raghunath .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
145. R.F.A. No. 1982 of 2001
Daya Nand .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
146. R.F.A. No. 2007 of 2001
M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd. .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
147. R.F.A. No. 2008 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [25]
M/s Ribbel International Limited .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors. ......Respondents
148. R.F.A. No. 2009 of 2001
M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills (P) Ltd. .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Anr. ......Respondents
149. R.F.A. No. 2010 of 2001
M/s Modern Straw Board Mills (P) Ltd.
.........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors.
......Respondents
150. R.F.A. No. 2033 of 2001
Ram Bhateri .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors.
......Respondents
151. R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2001
Raj Kumari and others
.........Appellant
Vs.
State of Hy. Etc. ....Respondents
152. R.F.A. No. 2323 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [26]
Darya Singh and others .........Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
153. R.F.A. No. 2324 of 2001
Gram Panchayat , Village Rai .........Appellant
Vs.
The State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
154. R.F.A. No. 2488 of 2001 (O&M)
Chander Bhan & others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
155. R.F.A. No. 2489 of 2001
Mool Chand & others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana & others ....Respondents
156. R.F.A. No. 2490 of 2001
Lakhman and others .....Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents.
157. R.F.A. No. 2491 of 2001
Lachhmi Narain Deceased through LRs and others .....Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents.
158. R.F.A. No. 2492 of 2001
Smt. Maya Devi and others .....Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [27]
Vs.
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents.
159. R.F.A. No. 2566 of 2001 (O&M)
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Mange and others ....Respondent
160. R.F.A. No. 2567 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Munshi Ram and Ors. ....Respondents
161. R.F.A. No. 2568 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Pawan Kumar and Ors. ....Respondents
162. R.F.A. No. 2569 of 2001
Haryana State Ind Dev Corporation .........Appellant
Vs.
Mam Chand and Ors. ....Respondents
163. R.F.A. No. 2769 of 2001
Pawan Kumar and Ors. .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. ....Respondents
164. R.F.A. No. 2770 of 2001
Sadhu Ram deceased through LRs. .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. ....Respondents
165. R.F.A. No. 3824 of 2001
Hem Chander and others .........Appellant
Vs.
Hy. State and others ....Respondent
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [28]
166. R.F.A. No. 3826 of 2001
Dhanno Devi and others .........Appellant
Vs.
Hy. State and others ....Respondent
167. R.F.A. No. 4013 of 2001 (O&M)
Sewa Ram .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Ors. ......Respondents
168. R.F.A. No. 4213 of 2001
Ram Bhateri and others .........Appellant
Vs.
Hy. State and others ......Respondent
169. R.F.A. No. 4248 of 2001
Sabha Chand and others .........Appellant
Vs.
Hy. State and others ....Respondent
170. R.F.A. No. 4472 of 2001
Anuj and other .........Appellants
Vs.
Hy. State and others ....Respondents
171. R.F.A. No. 4876 of 2001
Bhagwan Singh and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Hy. and others ....Respondent
172. R.F.A. No. 4877 of 2001
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [29]
Ram Kali and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Hy. ....Respondent
173. R.F.A. No. 5236 of 2001
Chandu Lal and ors. .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana and ors. ......Respondents
174. R.F.A. No. 256 of 2002
Mange and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana ......Respondent
175. R.F.A. No. 257 of 2002
Ram Niwas and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
176. R.F.A. No. 250 of 2002
Naresh Kumar .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
177. R.F.A. No. 255 of 2002
Tulsi and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana ......Respondent
178. R.F.A. No. 259 of 2002
Anuj Kumar and others .........Appellant
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [30]
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent
179. R.F.A. No. 260 of 2002
Brij Bhushan and others .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana ......Respondent
180. R.F.A. No. 141 of 2004
Net Ram .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana etc. ......Respondents
181. R.F.A. No. 3042 of 2005
Rajinder & Anr. .........Appellant
Vs.
St. of Hry. & Ors. ......Respondents
182. R.F.A. No. 126 of 2006
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Gram Panchayat Vill. Rai and others ......Respondent
183. R.F.A. No. 127 of 2006
HSIDC .........Appellant
Vs.
Rajinder and Ors. ......Respondents
184. R.F.A. No. 3565 of 2006
M/s Accurate Ceramic Indus. And Ors. .........Appellant
Vs.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [31]
State of Haryana and Ors. ......Respondents
185. R.F.A. No. 3858 of 2006
Anand .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Others ......Respondents
186. R.F.A. No. 3859 of 2006
Braham Parkash .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and Others ......Respondents
187. R.F.A. No. 607 of 2007
Narain Singh and Ors. .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Hry. and Ors. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr.S.P.Khatri, Advocate, Mr.B.S.Rana, Advocate,
Mr. G.N.Dhankar, Advcoate, Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate
Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate,
Mr.A.K.Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate,
Mr.S.R. Hooda, Advocate, Mr.R.S.Kundu, Advocate,
MR.R.K. Battas, Advocate and Mr.L.M. Beniwal, Advocate,
Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr.P.S. Sullar, Additional Advocate Haryana.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J.
As the common question of fact and law, regarding determination of market value of land acquired under Section 4 of the Land R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [32] Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act'), vide notification No.2408-Agri- S(2)-93/3513 dated February 23, 1994 in which award was pronounced on November 16, 1994, published in Haryana Government gazette (extraordinary), is involved and a large number of references were disposed of by a common order, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the above said first appeals under Section 54 of the Act simultaneously by one order:-
RFA Nos. 1971 of 2001 and RFA No. 258 of 2002 have been taken as the main appeals for adjudication of all the abovesaid appeals.
The Haryana government vide notification No.LAC 2408-Agri- S(2)-93/3513 published in Haryana Government gazette (extraordinary) under Section 4 of the Act notified that land which is the subject matter of award No.3 dated November 16, 1994, was likely to be needed by the Government for the purpose of construction of new Fruit and Vegetable Complex at Kundli, situated in Village Rai, Had Bast No.69, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Thereafter vide notification No. 2209-Agri-S(2)- 94/35899, dated July 20, 1994 issued under Section 6 of the Act, the State declared that the land under acquisition measuring 310.05 acres vide award No.3 was needed for the public purpose of construction of new Fruit and Vegetable Complex. The Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad was directed under Section 7 of the Act to take orders for acquisition of the land in question. The Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, vide award No.3 dated November 16, 1994 classified the land under acquisition as per Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 1993 as follows:-
S.No. Class of Land Area under Acquisition
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [33]
1. Chahi/Nehri 2218 K 14 marlas
2. Banjar Qudim 14 K 18 marlas
3. Gair Mumkin 201 K 05 Marlas
TOTAL: 2484 k 17 Marlas
The measurement and classification of the land was accepted by the land owners and the interested persons and no objection in this regard was received from the Department also. In pursuance to the notice under Section 9 of the Act, the owners as well as other interested persons were required to file claims. Compensation for the land was demanded at the rate of ` 10 lacs to ` 15 lacs per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector made necessary enquiries and consulted the relevant record of sale transaction which had taken place during three years period prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and assessed the market value of the land acquired as ` 1.25 lacs per acre for Chahi/ Nehri, ` 70000/- per acre for Barani/ Roshli land, ` 50000/- per acre for Banjar Qudim and ` 1.25 lacs for Gair Mumkin land.
Dissatisfied with Award No.3 dated November 16, 1994, a reference was sought by the land owners under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the actual market value of the land acquired by the State Government. The Reference Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties assessed the market value vide award dated November 30, 2000 as----
Chahi/ Nehri/ Gair Mumkin ` 40 per sq. yards
Barani/ Roshli ` 26 per sq. yards
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [34]
Banjar ` 24 per sq. yards
besides other statutory benefits.
Dissatisfied with the said assessment, the present appeals have been filed. The main contention of the claimants is that the land in dispute is situated on the National Highway, G.T. Road and falls in the National Capital region and the market value keeps on increasing as one move from the National Highway from Sonepat-Bahalgarh to Delhi. It was claimed that in the vicinity of the acquired land there are many shops, factories and JBT School besides there being a famous Sports school at Rai, adjoining to the acquired land. The other establishments like PWD Rest House, Police Station, BDO Office and a Tourist Complex in the vicinity of the acquired land indicate the potentiality of the same. It was submitted that the Reference Court had ignored the commercial location and the great potential and price rise of the land in dispute. It was urged that the land in dispute was acquired for development of New Fruit and Vegetable Complex and the respondent State had promised to allot a plot to the oustees according to the share in the acquired land but the possession of the land in dispute has been transferred from Marketing Board, Haryana to HSIDC, Haryana and now HSIDC has changed the purpose of the acquired land and an Industrial Estate is going to be established in place of New Fruit and Vegetable Complex. It was pointed out that HSIIDC is selling the industrial plots at the rate of ` 1500/- per square yards and HSIIDC being a business body is earning profit by selling these plots to the Industrial persons from Delhi who have been dislocated from their establishment by the Delhi R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [35] Administration. It was urged that the Reference Court had wrongly relied upon an award Ex.R4 dated August 31, 2000 pertaining to Village Jethri in which the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated February 23, 1994 was assessed at ` 35 per sq. yards for Chahi/ Nehri/Gair Mumkin land, ` 21 per sq. yards for Barani/ Roshli land and ` 19 per sq. yards Banjar Qudim land, whereas the land of Jethri is situated at a different location. It was claimed that the land in dispute being situated at G.T. Road and surrounded by commercial establishments, the reliance on the award dated August 31, 2000 Ex.R-4 was misplaced.
On the other hand, the Advocate General, Haryana, Mr.Hawa Singh Hooda, has contended that the Assessment made by the Reference Court is on the higher side by relying upon sale deeds Ex.R1, dated June 29, 1992 by virtue of which RW1 Om Parkash had sold 4 acres of land for a sum of Rs.4 lacs to Hakma and Ram Chander and sale deed Ex.R-3 dated October 14, 1992 vide which 5 kanals 10 marlas of land was sold by Savitri Devi for sale consideration of ` 69000/- to Hari Parkash. Mr. Hooda has urged that the sale deeds relied upon by the land owners pertain to small pieces of the land and the said sale deeds cannot constitute basis for determination of the market value of large pieces of land acquired by the State.
The sale deeds which have been relied upon by the claimants and proved on the record are Ex. P-1 to Ex.P7 are--- R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [36]
1. Sale deed Ex.P1 dated May 12, 1992 regarding 100 sq. yards of land at the rate of ` 120 per sq. yards in Village Aswar Khur near Village Rai;
2. Sale deed Ex.P2 dated March 19, 1992 regarding 389 sq. yards of land at the rate of ` 356 per sq. yards in Village Bar Malik.
3. Sale deed Ex.P3 dated October 14, 1990 regarding 4 K 4 M of land at the rate of ` 290 per sq. yards in Village Bar Khalsa near Village Rai;
4. Sale deed Ex.P4 dated August 26, 1992 regarding 1025 sq. yards of land at the rate of ` 127 per sq. yards in Village Aswarpur though not situated in Village Rai but near Village Rai;
5. Sale deed Ex.P5 dated February 9, 1995 regarding 13 marlas of land at the rate of ` 110 per sq. yards in Village Bahalgarh;
6. Sale deed Ex.P6 dated May 26, 1993 regarding 6 K 12 M of land in Village Gram Panchayat, Jethri for sale consideration of ` 2.47 lacs at the rate of ` 62 per sq. yards purchased by M/s Hindustan Ever Tools Limited;
7. Sale deed Ex.P7 dated March 22, 1993 regarding land measuring 200 sq. yards at the rate of ` 170 per sq. yards.
The sale deeds Ex.R-1 dated June 29, 1992 and Ex.R-3 dated October 14, 1992 pertaining to land situated in Village Rai showing that the R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [37] rate of land sold was ` 21 per sq. yards which is even less than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector i.e. at the rate of ` 26 per sq. yards situated in Village Jethri.
A perusal of site plan Ex.P-12 indicates that the acquired land is just abutting the G.T. Road and towards Panipat. It is surrounded by Village Rai, Bahalgarh and Asawarpur. The boundary of Village Bad Malik and Village Jethri are on the Delhi side. The acquired land abuts District Institute of Education and Training, Badh Malik and Bhad Khalsa towards Delhi side.
The Reference Court has put the acquired land at an inferior position observing that Village Rai is on better footing being situated near G.T. Road. Village Jethri has also been kept at lower value on the scale of potentiality than Village Rai.
The Reference Court while determining the market value of the land acquired has taken into consideration various sale deeds Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the market value determined by the same Court pertaining to Village Jethri vide Award Ex.R-4 in case Sukhdei and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, wherein the market value had been assessed at the rate of ` 35 per sq. yards for Chahi/ Nehri/ Gair Mumkin, ` 21 per sq. yards for Barani and ` 19 per sq. yards for Banjar respectively. Considering the land in dispute to be better situated having more potential than the land in Village Jethri, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of ` 40 per sq. yards for Chahi/ Nehri/ Gair Mumkin, ` 26 per sq. yards for Barani/Roshli and ` 24 per sq. yards for Banjar land respectively. R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [38]
I have considered all the facts and circumstances of this case and have carefully perused the situation of the land acquired in order to assess the market value taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land in view of the land being situated in the vicinity of G.T. Road and surrounded by the Industrial establishments and educational institutions. I have also considered various sale deeds, which have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court in order to determine the market value. Ex.P-12 is site plan of the acquired land alongwith other lands in the vicinity also showing areas covered by sale instances and other commercial and industrial establishments and abadi near and around the acquired land at Village Rai. Village boundary is shown with Black line. The G.T. Road and other rasta are shown with smoky grey colour, the acquired land is shown in blue colour. The area covered by the sale instances are shown in red colour and marked as XYZKLMP. The Education Institutes are shown in green colour whereas commercial and industrial establishments are shown in yellow colour and Abadis are shown in chocolate colour. It will be note worthy to point towards the "Educational Institutions" which are shown in green colour, i.e. Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, the District Institute of Education and Training, Bad Malik, JBT School and Government High School, Rai are adjacent to the acquired land. So far as the industrial establishments near to the acquired land on the G.T. Road are concerned, starting from the side of Panipat towards Delhi, these are as follows:-
1. Hilton and Harculiss Factory;R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [39]
2. Swet Chemical Antibiotike Factory;
3. Balaji Agro Foods Industry;
4. Coral Chemicals;
5. Amul Bread Factory;
6. Ethnic Tourist Complex;
7. Northland Factory;
8. Essma Factory;
9. Kay International Factory;
10. Toyo Springs Factory; and
11. Petrol Pump across the road.
The following commercial and industrial establishments although are not immediately on the G.T. Road but are adjacent to the acquired land, towards the Delhi Side:-
1. R.K. Electricals;
2. Kanodia Group of Industries;
3. M/s R.K. Industries;
4. Haryana Spares and Kalinga Cables;
5. R.K. Factory;
6. Hindustan Ever Test Tools;
7. Udyog Kunj; and
8. Veterinary Hospital.
The site plan Ex.P-12 also reflects that besides there being commercial and industrial potential for the land acquired, the acquired land is in close vicinity of BDO office, bank buildings, Patwar Ghar, Dispensary, R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [40] Police Station, Rai and Rest House, Rai. Ethnic Tourist Complex is bounded on one side by G.T. Road and on the other three sides by the land in dispute.
A Misc. application No.8625-CI of 2009 was filed to place on record a copy of the judgment dated May 30, 2007 passed in RFA No. 2453 of 2000-Smt.Chanderpati and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, in which the compensation pertaining to land acquired in Village Raipur, (Sonepat) for Development of Sectors 3 and 7 of the Sonepat vide notification dated November 9, 1992 under Section 4 of the Act was enhanced from `100 per sq. yards to ` 200 per sq. yards for Chahi land, by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Certified copy of the judgment in RFA No. 2453 of 2000 has been placed on record as annexure A-2. Annexure A-3 is the copy of the information supplied by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation under Right to Information Act, 2005, showing that the land of Village Rai was acquired for establishment of Industrial and Infrastructure Development and out of the acquired land, HSIIDC, Haryana, sold 25 acres of land to M/s Anant Raj Industries Ltd., 25 acres of land to M/s DLF Limited and 12 acres of land to M/s Reliance Industries Limited at the rate of ` 4000/- per sq. meters. The abovesaid statement has been produced on the record to show that the respondent is running business to earn the profit under the shadow of Land Acquisition Act. The farmers have got only ` 40 per sq. yards whereas the respondent had earned more. A copy of the site plan has been sought to be produced on record to show the situation of land of Village Raipur in which R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [41] the compensation has been assessed at the rate of ` 200/- per sq. yards in RFA No. 2453 of 2000- Smt.Chanderpati and others Vs. State of Haryana and another and the situation of Village Rai, in which the subject matter of the dispute is situated.
It has been submitted by counsel for the appellants that Village Raipur is situated about 5/6 kms. from the land of Village Rai towards Panipat side and the land of Village Rai is surrounded by lot of commercial establishments like famous sports School, Rai, Ethnic Tourist Complex, and other private factories whereas the land of Village Raipur is purely agriculture land having no commercial activities. The value of the land in dispute in village Rai is claimed to be much more than the value of the land in Village Raipur, the same being nearer to the capital. As the value of the land of Village Raipur has been assessed at the rate of ` 200/- per sq. yards, so the value of the land of Village Rai which was acquired after 2 years from the date of acquisition in Village Raipur has to be more than the market value assessed for Village Raipur. In the site plan produced as additional evidence, the acquired land of Village Raipur, Sector 7, is shown in Green Colour whereas the acquired land of Village Rai is shown in red colour. The land of Village Rai has been acquired for the Industrial and Infrastructure Development, as is apparent from the information supplied under Right to Information Act, 2005, by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation. In view of the said circumstances, it is claimed that the market value should be assessed at the rate of more R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [42] than ` 200/- per sq. yards. It was claimed that the market value should be assessed at the rate of ` 500/- per sq. yards.
The Advocate General, Haryana has objected to the reliance of annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 as additional evidence but at the same time has not been able to rebut the argument of counsel for the appellants for the acquisition of Village Raipur which had taken place about 2 years prior to the present acquisition in Village Rai. The market value assessed at the rate of ` 200/- per sq. yards despite the fact that the land acquired in Village Raipur was only agriculture land. The site plan Annexure A-2 has been permitted to be taken on record as it clearly indicates the situation of Village Raipur and Village Rai shown in green and red colour. Village Raipur is also situated on the G.T. Road whereas Village Rai is also on the same side on the G.T. Road but towards Delhi. The Village Raipur is shown to be about 44-45 kms. from Delhi whereas Village Rai is shown about 38-39 kms. from Delhi. The distance between the two villages on the G.T. Road is 5/6 kms. The market value assessed by judicial orders pertaining to the land acquired adjacent to a particular land is always considered to be of important evidentiary value while determining the market value of a particular piece of acquired land. In order to determine the potentiality of acquired land, its surrounding and situation are taken into consideration besides considering the judgments passed by the Courts pertaining to the land adjacent to the acquired land. Village Bahalgarh is situated on the G.T. Road opposite to the land acquired at a distance of about 41 kms. from Delhi. 162.5 acres of land situated in Village Patti Musalmanan was R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [43] notified under Section 4 of the Act for setting up a housing project in Sector 12, Sonepat, vide notification dated May 17, 1990, which was also followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on May 16, 1991. In a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge, Sonepat awarded compensation at the rate of ` 125/- per sq. yards as the land was situated behind E.C.E. Factory situated on the left side of the Sonepat-Bahalgarh road and ` 150/- per sq. yards on the right side abutting the G.T. Road. The High Court had enhanced the compensation from ` 125/- per sq. yards to ` 135/- per sq. yards for the land on the left side and from ` 150/- per sq. yards to ` 160/- per sq. yards on the right side on the ground that the land abutting the road had more potential value. The Apex Court in Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana and others, C.A. No. 3677 of 2010 and Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and others, C.A. No. 3674 of 2010, decided on April 21, 2010 awarded a sum of ` 225/- per sq. yards as compensation for the entire acquired land alongwith all statutory benefits. The broad factors which had been taken into consideration by the Apex Court pertaining to the land which is situated on Sonepat- Delhi Road and the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land has got building potentiality and the same would be relevant to determine the market value in view of the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. The relevant observations of the Apex Court pertaining to the land in Village Bahalgarh which is only at a distance of 3 kms. from the acquired land on the opposite side abutting to G.T. Road towards Panipat are as follows:- R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [44]
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The location of the land in order to appreciate its potential for the purpose of compensation has first to be understood.. Admittedly, the land is situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat which is a district headquarter adjoining Delhi and within the National Capital Region. The distance between Bahalgarh, a small township on the Grand Trunk Road, National Highway No.1, built five centuries ago by Sher Shah Suri (and arguably India's most important and strategic highway and the lifeline between the rest of India and the north and northwest), and Sonepat is 7 km., as per the indication on the National Highway itself. The acquired land is situated on both sides of the road leading from Bahalgarh to Sonepat with some portions touching the road side and some portion slightly away and situated behind the ECE factory. It is, however, the admitted position and (we have seen the location on the maps that have been produced before us) that the land behind the ECE factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur Kalan which had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the appellants claim should be made the basis for determining compensation in the present matter as well. It must also be noticed that the R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [45] enormous development from the Delhi border alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the Bahalgarh - Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to see and we have seen this on the maps produced in Court as well, as huge residential and commercial areas have been developed with a mind boggling increase in the price of agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years. While dealing with the question of the potential value of the land acquired this Court in P. Rama Reddy and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others (1995) 2 SCC 305 observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they being (and we quote), "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
(ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [46]
(iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes;
(v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land;
(vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land;
(vii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [47] taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality."
The document Annexure A-3, an information supplied by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation under Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates that 25 acres of land has been allotted to M/s Anant Raj Industries limited at the rate of ` 4000/- per sq. meters for setting up a Technology Park under the Campus Development norms as laid down in Industrial Policy, 2005 of the State Government; another 25 acres of land has been allotted to M/s DLF Limited at the rate of ` 4000/- per sq. meters for setting up of Technology Park under the same scheme and another 12 acres of land has been allotted to M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. at the rate of ` 3000/- per sq. meters for setting up of Agri Products, Processing and Agri Infrastructure facilities in Food Park, Rai, under the policy of Ministry of Food Processing/ Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India for helping the farmers in selling their output/ products.
On asking of the Court, the Sonepat-Kundli Multi Functional Urban Complex Development Plan has been produced which has been taken on the record in the interest of justice, as Ex.R-5 (additional Evidence). The land in dispute in Village Rai has been depicted as land proposed for Industrial purposes, whereas the land in Village Raipur which is at a distance of about 4 to 6 kms. has been depicted as proposed for residential purposes.
R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [48]
After consideration all the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the acquired land which is situated on the G.T. Road being suitable for putting up building for industrial purposes and absence of any statutory impediment for using the acquired land for building purposes and situated in the close proximity to the important educational institutions and tourist spot i.e. Ethnic Tourist Complex, the land has got great potential. The market value assessed by the Reference Court is without appreciation of the potential of the land for the purpose of compensation. The land in this case was notified for acquisition in February 1994. The award was given by the Collector in November 1994. The Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of ` 40/- per sq. yards for Chahi/ Nehri/ Gair Mumkin, ` 26 per sq. yards for Barani and ` 24 per sq. yards for Banjar qudim land respectively on November 30, 2000 by enhancing the compensation. This Court is of the opinion that the relevant factors for determining the just compensation had not been appreciated by the Reference Court and that there are judicial decisions by the Apex Court and by the High Court granting compensation at the rate of ` 225 per sq. yards (In Udho Dass case) regarding acquisition of land on Sonepat-Bahalgarh road in Village Patti Musalmanan and ` 200 per sq. yards in Village Raipur for the land acquired for residential purposes. A period of 17 years has elapsed from the date of first notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Apex Court in Udho Dass case (supra) has observed that "no doubt the act provides for the payment of solatium, interest and an additional amount for the delay but these payments do not R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [49] kept pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets." The Apex Court observed "that 12% interest per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired." The Apex Court took a judicial notice of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized. The Apex Court laid down additional parameter for adjudicating the potential of the acquired land by observing that where the compensation proceedings have continued for a period of almost 20 years, the potential of the land acquired from owner must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years and if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future only. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--
"Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [50] The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [51] fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired."
I have also taken into consideration the sale deed relied upon by the Reference Court but I am of the opinion that the sale instances relied upon by both the parties do not accurately reflect the potential of the acquired land. In the context a reference can be made to observations made by the Apex Court in Udho Das case (supra):-
" There is another unfortunate aspect which is for all to see and to which the Courts turn a Nelson's eye and pretend as if the problem does not exist. This is a factor which creates an extremely grim situation in a case of compensation based exclusively on sale instances. This is the wide spread tendency to under value sale prices. The provision of Collector's rates has only marginally corrected the anomaly, as these rates are also abnormally low and do not reflect the true value. Where does all this leave a landowner whose land is being compulsorily R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2001 [52] acquired as he has no control over the price on which some other landowner sells his property which is often the basis for compensation?"
Taking into consideration the abovesaid circumstances, the appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and those filed by the State and HSIIDC are dismissed and the compensation is enhanced to ` 210 per sq. yards for the entire land as the land was originally acquired for New Fruit and Vegetable Complex but subsequently the same has been handed over to HSIIDC for industrial purposes. The classification of land for the purpose of determining compensation in Chahi, Barani or Banjar would be immaterial taking into consideration the purpose for which the same has been acquired. The land owners will be entitled to all the statutory benefits besides the market value as per the amended provisions of Sections 23 (1) (A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.
July 5, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE