Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hsiidc vs Ayub Khan And Ors on 6 July, 2022
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.07.2022
Reserved On: 07.05.2022
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation
Limited
... Appellant(s)
Versus
Ayub Khan and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocates
with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini and Mr. Vidul Kapoor,
Advocates, for the HSIIDC.
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Satyendra Chauhan and Mr. Jagtar Singh, Advocates.
Mr. Karan Nehra, Ms Sandeep Kaur, Mr. Abhay Josan,
Mr. Harvinder Thakur, Mr. Sushil K. Sharma,
Mr. M.L.Sharma, Mr. Varun Gupta, Mr. J.S.Yadav,
Mr. Gulshan Nandwani, Mr. Himanshu Sharma and
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocates, for the landowners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General,
and Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. Introduction and Background 1.1 This batch of appeals (detail whereof is at the foot of the judgment) has been filed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HSIIDC") as well as the landowners, while questioning the correctness of the judgment 1 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:16 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 2 And Other Connected Appeals dated 17.03.2020, passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC"). The notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") as also the RC are common. Hence, the learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that this batch of appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
1.2 The relevant particulars, for the purpose of decision of the present case, are as under:-
S.NO. TITLE DETAILS
1. Date of Notification under 29.09.2005
Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
2. Date of Notification under 15.12.2005
Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
3. Purpose of Acquisition. For construction of Express
Highway connecting NH-1, 10, 8
and 2.
4. Location, area and nature of Proposing to acquire the land the acquired land measuring 374 kanals and 7 marlas of land located in village Sabras, Tehsil Taoru, District Mewat.
5. Number and Date of the Award No.3 dated 22.05.2006 acquiring of the Land Acquisition the lands comprised in Rectangle Collector. No.
6. Amount assessed by the Land ₹12,50,000/- per acre along with Acquisition Collector. the statutory benefits.
7. Amount determined by the The RC, in the first round, Reference Court. dismissed the applications under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
However, on 31.01.2019, the High Court, in Om Parkash v.
State of Haryana and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 3552 of 2010), remitted back the matter to the RC for fresh decision.
8. Date of re-decision of the RC Vide judgment dated 17.03.2020, and the amount re-assessed, the RC has re-assessed the market after remand. value of the acquired land @ 2 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 3 And Other Connected Appeals S.NO. TITLE DETAILS ₹17,50,00/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits while directing that the landowners shall also be entitled to compensation for severance of their land if the unacquired/remnant land is less than 1 acre.
1.3 The pleadings of both the parties, while showing potentiality of the acquired land, are identical with the pleadings arising from village Dingerheri in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Suraj Mal and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 11 of 2021, decided on 07.07.2022), which are extracted as under:-
"On the applications filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the LAC has referred the matter to the RC for assessment of the market value of the acquired land. It was claimed that the market value of the acquired land is approximately ₹1,00,00,000/- per acre and the LAC did not take into consideration the location, nature and the vicinity of the land in question to other landmark places. It is claimed that the National Highway No.8 and 10 are at a distance of only 6 Kms. The Industrial Model Town, Manesar (hereinafter referred to as "the IMT") is 10 kms. away from the village. The Gurugram city is only 20 kms. away from the village. Several industries, residential sectors, commercial institutions, farm houses and poultry farms surround the village. It is also claimed that there is a pucca road leading to the land in question and the LAC has failed to take notice of the fact that the acquired land is located 3 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 4 And Other Connected Appeals near Tauru city and there existed tube-wells, rooms, barbed wire fencing, underground water pipe lines, valuable trees etc. The LAC also failed to take into consideration that the State Government has already acquired the land in the revenue estates of villages Manesar, Kasan etc. and these areas are located near the acquired land. The landowners also claim that the townships, namely Pataudi, Sohna, Tauru, Nuh, Bhiwari, Manesar and Gurugram city are within a distance around 5 to 30 kms. from the acquired land and the land has great potential for residential and commercial development. There exist several petrol pumps, markets, resorts, golf courses, factories, farm houses and commercial and educational institutions in Manesar, Pachgaon, Pataudi, Tauru, Bhiwari, Sohna, Nuh, Gurugram and Palwal"
1.4 The HSIIDC has also taken the same stand as in the pleadings in the case of village Dingerheri, which are extracted as under:-
"Per contra, the HSIIDC took a stand that the LAC has already awarded excessive compensation, therefore, there is no scope for re-determination. It is stated that the IMT, Manesar is at a significant distance. Moreover, the acquired land is not chahi (not giving two crops in a year) land in nature."
1.5 On examination of the pleadings, the RC has framed the following issues:-
"1) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition 4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 5 And Other Connected Appeals Act? OPP.
2) Whether the petitions are time-barred ? OPP
3) Relief".
1.6 In the considered view of this Court, the following issues need
determination:-
i) What was the appropriate market value of the acquired
land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 29.09.2005?
ii) Is it appropriate to rely upon the assessment made by the RC with respect to the acquisition of a different parcel of land by a separate notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, which was issued after a period of more than 2 years of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the present case, more particularly when neither the copy of the judgment passed by the Court while deciding the cases arising from the separate notification is made a part of the record nor there is evidence to prove the comparative location of respective parcels of the acquired land through these notifications?
iii) What should be the compensation for severance in case the land remaining with the owner stands bifurcated in more than two or more parcels due to the acquisition of the land for the construction of a highway?
2. Evidence Produced by the Parties 2.1 In oral evidence, the landowners, in order to prove their case, 5 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 6 And Other Connected Appeals have examined the following witnesses:
Sr. No. Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness
1. PW.1 Subash Registration Clerk.
2. PW.2 Sajid Ali Clerk to the office of District Town Planner, Nuh.
3. PW.3 Suresh Kumar Halqa Patwari.
4. PW.4 Madan Lal Draftsman.
5. PW.5 Joginder Singh Petitioner.
2.2 In documentary evidence, the landowners have also produced the following documents:
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document
1. Exh.PW2/A Development Plan Carbon copy
2. Exh.PW3/A Aks Sizra of Tauru
3. Exh.PW3/B Aks Sizra of village Sabras
4. Exh.PW4/A Site Plan of village Sabras
5. Exh.P1 (marked twice) Western Resort Country Club
6. Exh.P2 (marked twice) ITC Grand Bharat
7. Exh.P3 (marked twice) Award dated 6.4.2016 2.3 On the other hand, in oral evidence, the HSIIDC, has examined the following witness:-
Sr. No. Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness
1. RW.1 Subash Registration Clerk.
2.4 In documentary evidence, the HSIIDC, has also produced the following documents in its documentary evidence:- Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document
1. Exh.R12 Circle rate for the year 2004-05
2. Exh.R13 Circle rate for the year 2005-06
3. Exh.R14 Circle rate for the year 2006-07
4. Exh.R15 Aks Sizra of village Sabras
3. At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract below a tabulated compilation, prepared by the Reference Court containing relevant information with respect to the various sale exemplars produced by the
6 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 7 And Other Connected Appeals respective parties:-
Sr. Exhibit Vasika Dated Sale Land Sold Rate per Village No. No. No. Consideration (K M S) acre (In Rs.)
1. P1 2008 28.12.2005 6,70,000 1-1-0 53,60,000 Tauru
2. P2 1224 15.9.2005 12,00,000 1-6-0 73,84,000 Tauru
3. P3 1409 26.7.2006 65,00,000 3-8-0 1,52,94,11 Tauru 7
4. P4 1611 8.11.2005 10,37,500 2-4-0 37,72,727 Dadu
5. P5 1895 14.12.2005 7,00,000 1-16-0 31,11,111 Pada
6. P6 850 20.7.2005 18,96,875 12B-0-0 50,58,333 Gangani
7. P7 1357 21.7.2006 55,00,000 1B-12B-0 38,50,000 Gangani
8. R1 1491 23.12.2004 60,000 2-0-0 2,40,000 Sabras
9. R2 1176 12.9.2005 66,500 2-0-0 2,66,333 Sabras
10. R3 698 29.6.2005 7,58,875 53-1-0 1,14,439 Sabras
11. R4 2123 10.1.2006 4,50,000 6-7-0 5,66,929 Tauru
12. R5 1758 25.11.2005 3,96,000 7-11-0 4,19,602 Gudhi
13. R6 2033 30.12.2005 2,40,000 7-11-0 2,54,304 Jhamuwas
14. R7 1738 28.8.2006 4,00,000 8-3-0 3,92,638 Gudhi
15. R8 1409 14.10.2005 2,31,875 5-6-0 3,50,000 Tauru
16. R9 3330 15.2.2007 19,25,000 15-8-0 10,19,867 Jhamuwas
17. R10 3242 5.2.2007 55,000 8-5-0 10,35,294 Kalwari
18. R11 1606 8.11.2005 5,00,000 8-0-0 5,00,000 Hassanpur Note: The correctness of the above extracted tabulated compilation of the sale deeds by the RC, has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the parties.
4. On the analysis of the judgment passed by the RC, it is evident that the following reasons have been recorded while passing the judgment:-
i) The assessment made by the LAC is contradicted by the evidence led by the HSIIDC as all the sale deeds of village Sabras (Ex.R1 to Ex.R3) fall in the range of sale consideration of ₹1,14,359/- to ₹2,66,333/- per acre.
However, there is no reason as to why the LAC assessed the amount @ ₹12,50,000/- per acre.
7 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 8 And Other Connected Appeals
ii) The minutes of the meeting of the Divisional Level Price Fixation Committee held on 26.04.2006 do not show any application of mind with reference to the sale instances.
iii) The sale deeds (Ex.R1 to Ex.R11) reflect a price which is lower than the amount awarded by the LAC, hence, cannot be relied upon in view of bar contained in Section 25 of the 1894 Act.
iv) After rejecting all the sale deeds, the RC proceeded to assess the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its previous judgment passed on 12.09.2012 in L.A. case No.21 of 2009/2011 titled as Jitender etc. Vs. State of Haryana etc. with respect to the acquisition of the land vide notification dated 11.12.2007 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act concerning the land located in village Dhulawat.
v) The landowners shall be entitled for compensation of severance of the land if the landowners are left with less than 1 acre of land on account of compulsory acquisition.
5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book as well as the record of the Reference Court, which was requisitioned.
6. The learned senior counsel representing the landowners contend that the RC should have relied upon the sale deeds of village Tauru which are comparable. They further submit that the sale deeds of village Gangani should also be relied upon to assess the market value. Per contra, the learned 8 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 9 And Other Connected Appeals counsel representing the HSIIDC has contended that the RC has wrongly refused to rely upon the sale deeds (Ex.R1 to Ex.R11) on the basis of wrong interpretation of Section 25 of the 1894 Act. He also contends that the RC has wrongly relied upon the award passed on 12.09.2012 in Jitender's case (supra). The aforesaid judgment is neither a part of the record nor any evidence has been led to prove that the acquired land in village Dhulawat was comparable with the land in village sabras. While drawing the attention of the Court to para 41 of its judgment, the learned counsel submits that the RC has assessed the compensation on account of severance without any evidence.
7. Discussion by this Court Issue No.(i) 7.1 This Court now proceeds to consider and evaluate the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and determine the afore-framed issues.
7.2 As regards the first reason, it would be noticed that the RC has overlooked the fact that a narrow strip of land for the construction of a highway was sought to be acquired by a common notification for compulsory acquisition under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. The LAC has, uniformly, the amount payable in all the 15 villages. Moreover, the RC is not required to go into the reasons given by the LAC while assessing the market value of the acquired land @ ₹12,50,000/- per acre, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the 1894 Act, which debars the Court from reducing the amount assessed by the LAC. 7.3 As regards the second reason assigned by the RC, there cannot 9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 10 And Other Connected Appeals be any dispute. The Divisional Level Committee was expected to consider the material before assessing the market value. 7.4 As regards the next reason, the RC has erred in refusing to take into account/consideration the sale instances (Ex.R1 to Ex.R11). It is obvious that the RC has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 25 of the 1894 Act. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 wherein it has expounded that there is no restriction in taking into consideration the sale exemplars reflecting a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. The only bar is on determining the market value below the amount assessed by the LAC.
7.5 It is evident that the landowners have failed to produce any sale instance of village Sabras, whereas, the HSIIDC has produced as many as three sale instances of the contemporaneous period. The sale instance (Ex.R3) No. 698 dated 29.06.2005 is with respect to the land measuring 53 kanals and 1 marla which is of more than 6 acres of land. Through this sale instance, which is hardly four months prior to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, the land has been sold @ ₹1,14,439/- per acre. In fact, the sale instances (Ex.R1 to Ex.R3) show that the market value of the agricultural land in village Sabras was between ₹2,66,000/- or ₹2,70,000/- per acre, approximately.
7.6 Since the sale instances of village Sabras are available, it would not be appropriate to refer to the sale instances of the land located in other villages particularly in the absence of evidence to prove that the geographical location, potential and the market value of the acquired land 10 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 11 And Other Connected Appeals was same as that of the land covered by the sale exemplars. 7.7 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court comes to a conclusion that the RC has erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land from ₹12,50,000/- to ₹ 17,50,000/-. Therefore, the appropriate market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 29.09.2005 is ₹12,50,000/- as assessed by the LAC, which requires no interference. Hence, the issue No.(i) stands answered. Issue No.(ii) 7.8 The next reason assigned by the RC is strange. Neither the judgment passed in the Jitender's case (supra) forms a part of the record nor the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the said judgment is of the contemporaneous period as the date of notification in the present case. There is also no evidence to prove the comparative location of the land acquired in village Dhulawat as with that of the acquired land in village Sabras. In the Jitender's case (supra), the date of assessment of the market value was 11.12.2007, which is two years after the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in these appeals. 7.9 This issue has been elaborately discussed in the cases arising from the acquisition in village Dingerheri in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Suraj Mal and Others (supra). The relevant discussion whereof is as under:-
"9.9 It is well settled that before the Court relies upon some documentary evidence so as to assess the market value, the Court is required to see as to whether such document is part of the file or not. The Court is also required to see as to whether 11 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 12 And Other Connected Appeals the land sold through the sale deed is comparable with the acquired land or not. In the absence of such finding, it is not safe to rely upon the same. As already noticed, the landowners have failed to produce any sale instance of the acquired land located in village Dingerheri.
9.10 As per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1872 Act"), the judgments of the Courts are relevant only in accordance with Section 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the 1872 Act. Section 40 of the 1872 Act provides that a previous judgment which operates as bar to a second suit or trial is relevant. Section 41 of the 1872 Act provides that the judgments, orders or decrees of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, are relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Section 42 of the 1872 Act is in the nature of a residuary provision, which provides that the judgments, which are not relevant under Section 41, but they relate to the matters of public nature which are relevant to the inquiry, shall be relevant, but shall not be a conclusive proof of the fact which they state. Section 43 of the 1872 Act provides that all other judgments, except those mentioned in Section 40 to 42 of the 1872 Act shall be 12 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 13 And Other Connected Appeals irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the 1872 Act. If we analyze the judgment passed by the RC on 12.09.2012, it is obvious that a previous judgment is not relevant and does not fall within the scope of Section 40, 41, 42 or 43 of the 1872 Act. Furthermore, as per the observations made by the RC, the aforesaid judgment is with respect to notification issued on 11.12.2007, which is more than 2 years after the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued vide notification dated 29.09.2005. The aforesaid assessment made by the Court shall not be relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land on 29.09.2005. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that the acquired land of village Dhulawat was comparable with the acquired land in the present case. Thus, the second issue is answered in negative."
7.10 For the reasons recorded above, the issue No. (ii) stands substantially answered.
Issue No.(iii) 7.11 As regards the severance charges, the matter has also been elaborately discussed while deciding the case of village Dingerheri in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Suraj Mal and Others (supra), the relevant discussion is extracted as under:-
"9.11 The third issue which arises for consideration has already been noticed above. A narrow strip of land has been 13 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 14 And Other Connected Appeals acquired for constructing an express highway. The landowners have claimed damages for severance/bifurcation of their land into two or more parcels. It has been projected that due to acquisition of the narrow strip of land, the remaining land of certain landowners is located on both the sides of expressway. The RC, after relying upon the judgments passed in State of Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar 2000 (1) LACC 360 and Smt.Bindu Garg v. State of Haryana 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 261 has assessed the damages on account of severance @ 50%. It would be noted here that there is no clarity as to whether such amount @ 50% is with respect to the acquired land or unacquired land. Moreover, the Court has not analyzed the evidence to prove the damages, if any, suffered by the landowners. The RC has committed an error in blindly following the judgment passed by the Court without analyzing its facts. In Rajinder Kumar's case (supra), the land was acquired for construction of a railway over-bridge. The market value of the acquired land located adjacent to the railway over-bridge was substantially reduced due to difficulty in accessing the unacquired remnant land. In that context, the Court awarded 50% compensation for the remaining unacquired land. Similarly, in Smt.Bindu Garg's case (supra), the Court found that the remaining unacquired land has been rendered completely inaccessible and has resulted in complete loss. In that context, the Court awarded 50% of the market 14 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 15 And Other Connected Appeals value on account of damages suffered due to severance of the unacquired land. In the present case, no evidence to assess the quantum of damages, on account of severance, has been led. The judgments relied upon by the RC were not applicable. However, this Court cannot overlook that the landowners must have suffered some amount of damages or loss on account of severance or the bifurcation of the unacquired land into two or more parcels. With respect to similar acquisition of land for the same expressway i.e. Kundali-Maneser-Palwal Expressway, this Court, in HSIIDC vs. Rattan Singh and Others ( RFA- 5620-2013, decided on 05.10.2021), held as under:-
"The next issue which requires adjudication is regarding the proper and appropriate compensation/damages for the severance of the land in two parts. Clause (3) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enables the Court to order the payment of the damage sustained by the person on account of severance from other land. In the present case, the acquisition of the aforementioned land is for the construction of the express highway. A long strip of land has been acquired. In the cases arising from village Mehndipur, the official of the HSIIDC has himself admitted that the land of various owners stands divided in two independent unconnected parcels due to the compulsory acquisition of the land. Although, the land 15 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 16 And Other Connected Appeals owners have failed to lead any evidence to prove the extent of loss/damage suffered by them, even in that case, it is clear cut/indisputable that the owners would have difficulty in accessing the parcels of separate land across the road. Some of the land owners may have been left with only a small portion on one side of the road, whereas remaining part is on the other side of the road. In any case, it would become uneconomical and hard to cultivate and irrigate a small piece of land which is left on the one side of the Road. It may be noted here that in the appeals arising from the reference applications of the acquisition of the land located at village Daboda Khurd, the reference court has assessed the damages for severance of the land to the extent of 20% with regard to market value of the acquired or unacquired land whichever is less. The State or the HSIIDC have not filed any appeals. In other words, they have accepted the judgments. The HSIIDC has filed appeals in the cases arising from the acquisition made at village Mehndipur, where surprisingly the same Presiding Judge has ordered the 50% of the market value of the acquired land towards the severance charges. In this case, Chand Singh appeared as PW1 on behalf of the land owners. He did not depose about the loss suffered by the owners on account of severance of the unacquired land. However, 16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 17 And Other Connected Appeals when Bhagwan Singh Rana deposed on behalf of HSIIDC, he admitted that Smt. Bala, Balraj, Dharam Singh, Kapoor Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Ram Singh, Priti Singh and Munshi etc. have suffered loss on account of the fact that their unacquired/remaining land stands sundered due to the construction of the road (Expressway). In other words, these owners are now left with unacquired land which is in two separate independent parcels. They will be required to make special arrangements for irrigation and cultivation of land in the both the parcels of land situated on both the sides of the road which will be a hardship to them. Hence, the Court cannot deprive the owners from damages on account of the severance, merely because the owners have failed to lead any evidence to prove the extent of loss/damages suffered by them. However, there is no evidence to prove that the owners have suffered damages to the extent of 50% of the market value of the acquired land. Furthermore, there is no appeal by the State and the HSIIDC in the appeals arising from the acquisition made at village Daboda Khurd.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeals filed by the HSIIDC are allowed to the extent that the owners of villages Mehendipur shall also be entitled to the damages for severance of the land to the extent of 17 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 18 And Other Connected Appeals 20% of the market value of the acquired or unacquired land whichever is less. However, the Executing Court is directed to ascertain as to whether the land of a particular owner stood bisected or not, before ordering the payment of damages for the severance of the land.
The learned counsel representing the owners have relied upon the judgments passed in Narender Kaur and Gurbachan Singh (supra). In both the judgments, the Court after coming to a conclusion that some part of the acquired land is virtually lost as it is rendered inaccessible and uneconomical, assessed the severance charges at @ 50%. As already noticed in this case, no such evidence has been led by the landowners to prove that fact. In these cases, it has come on record that the unacquired land of certain owners stands separated/bisected into two different parcels due to construction of the road".
9.12 Following the aforesaid view, the landowners shall also be entitled to damages for severance on the same lines. Thus, the third issue is also substantially answered. 9.13 Further, this Court affirm the observation of the RC that damages for severance or the compensation on account of severance shall only be granted in regard to the land comprised in khasra numbers, which have been severed on account of acquisition and the remnant land is less than an 18 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 19 And Other Connected Appeals acre."
7.12 For the reasons recorded above, the issue No. (iii) stands substantially answered.
8. Decision 8.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion is inevitable. The appeals filed by the HSIIDC are allowed, whereas that of the landowners are dismissed. The judgment of the RC is set aside qua the assessment of the market value. However, with regard to the severance charges, the judgment of the RC shall stand modified, in accordance with the aforesaid discussion.
8.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals, shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 06, 2022 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name
1. RFA No.49 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited v.Narain Singh and others
2. RFA No.53 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v.
Mehboob Khan and others
3. RFA No.50 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Bashir Khan and others
4. RFA No.51 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Smt. Inderawati and others
5. RFA No.52 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Abdul Rehman and others 19 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 20 And Other Connected Appeals Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name
7. RFA No.55 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Abdul Rehman and others
8. RFA No.56 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v.
Manohar and others
9. RFA No.57 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v.
Joginder Singh and others
12. RFA No.60 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Fazru and others
13. RFA No.61 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Shri Khazan Singh and others
15. RFA No.63 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v.
Manohar and others
16. RFA No.64 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Aamin and others
17. RFA No.65 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Smt. Hoshiyari Devi and others
20. RFA No.1246 of 2021 Krishna v. State of Haryana & others
21. RFA No.1250 of 2021 Abdul Rehman v. State of Haryana & others 20 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 48 of 2021 (O&M) 21 And Other Connected Appeals Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name
22. RFA No.1251 of 2021 Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana & others
23. RFA No.1258 of 2021 Abdul Rehman v. State of Haryana & others
24. RFA No.1262 of 2021 Bashir Khan v. State of Haryana & others
25. RFA No.1283of 2021 Ayub Khan v. State of Haryana & others
26. RFA No.1284 of 2021 Kalu v. State of Haryana & others
27. RFA No.1340 of 2021 Aamin through LRs and others v. State of Haryana & others
28. RFA No.1359 of 2021 Krishna v. State of Haryana & others
29. RFA No.1370 of 2021 Narain Singh v. State of Haryana & others
30. RFA No.1431 of 2021 Joginder Singh v. State of Haryana & others
31. RFA No.1438 of 2021 Hoshiyari Devi v. State of Haryana & others
32. RFA No.1244 of 2021 Mehboob Khan v. State of Haryana & others (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 06, 2022 "DK"
21 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 25-12-2022 02:15:17 :::