Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Satkartar Realtors Pvt Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 March, 2022
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
RFA-458-2016
and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA-458-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.03.2022
M/s Satkarta Realtors (P) Ltd.
....Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present- Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gurpreet Randhawa, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate, Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate, Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate, Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate, Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate, Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate, Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate, Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate,Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate, Mr. M.S. Khillan, Advocate, Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, Mr.Y.P. Malik, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate, Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the landowners.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana and Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J 1 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 2
1.Introduction This batch of 154 appeals (details whereof are given at the foot of the judgment) filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') assailing the correctness of the different awards passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'RC') on 17.09.2014, 25.08.2015, 30.11.2015 and 11.04.2016 respectively, while deciding the various reference applications filed u/s 18 of the 1894 Act, shall stand disposed of. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 are common. The acquired land which is in a compact block, is spread over 3 different revenue estates namely, Rohtak, Bhaiyapur and Para. It has been acquired for developing Sector 36-A, Rohtak. Through separate awards, the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') has assessed identical market value of the acquired land. The acquired land is surrounded as under:-
East Bye-pass road
North Sector 37
West Peripheral road 60 metres wide
South Railway track
The evidence led by the parties is also more or less common. Most of the learned counsel representing the parties are not only common but are also ad idem that this batch of appeals can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
2. Facts:-
2.1 The relevant particulars are compiled as under:-
2 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 3 15.12.2006 Notification (LAC(II)-2006/NTLA/348) under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued proposing to acquire land measuring 8.23 acres from village Bhaiyyapur, 99.97 acres from village Para and 398.34 acres from revenue estate, Rohtak. 14.12.2007 Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued. 30.11.2009 By three different awards no. 35, 33 and 34 with respect to Bhaiyyapur, land measuring 8.23 acres, village Para 42.65 acres and Rohtak, 331.86 acres of land was acquired. In other words, in village Para, 57.32 acres and in Village Rohtak 64.51 acre has not been acquired. The LAC uniformly assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land situated in all the three revenue estates. 17.09.2014 The Reference Court, while deciding the cases arising from village Bhaiyyapur dismissed the application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
25.08.2015 With respect to the acquired land located in village revenue estate, Rohtak, the Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land by dividing the same into two different parcels. The acquired land abutting the National Highway upto the depth of 1 acre was assessed at the rate of Rs.32,00,000/-
per acre whereas the land beyond the depth of 1 acre from the National Highway was assessed at the rate of Rs.26,18,000/- per acre.
30.10.2015 The Reference Court again assessed the market value of the acquired land upto the depth of 1 acre on the National Highway at rate of Rs.32,00,000/- per acre, whereas, the acquired land beyond the depth of 1 acre was assessed at Rs.28,65,000/- per acre.
11.04.2016 By another award with respect to revenue estate Rohtak, the Reference Court followed the judgment passed on 25.08.2015 and assessed the market value of the land upto the depth of 1 acre from the National Highway at the rate of 32,00,000/- per acre, whereas, the acquired land beyond the depth of 1 acre was assessed at Rs.26,18,000/- per acre.
3. Oral and documentary evidence Hence all these appeals have been heard Village wise 3.1 With respect to acquired land located in Village Bhaiyyapur, only 2 applications u/s 18 of the 1894 Act were decided vide award dated 17.09.2014. The landowners in order to prove their case examined Sunil Kumar, one of the petitioners as PW1. Further, the sale deeds produced by the landowners have been complied in a tabulated form in para 3.14.
3 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 4 3.3 On the other hand, the State examined Ram Niwas, Kanungo as RW1 and produced the following documents:-
Ex.RW1/A Affidavit of Ram Niwas Kanungo Ex.R-1 Copy of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Ex.R-2 Copy of notification under Section 6 of the Act.
Ex.R-3 Copy of Collector rate
Ex.R-4 Copy of RR Policy
Ex.R-5 Copy of Award No.35 dated 30.11.2009
Ex.R-11 Aks-sijra
3.4 The RC, after noticing that the landowners have failed to
produce sale deed with respect to sale of land in village Bhaiyyapur, dismissed the applications. The RC did not rely upon sale exemplars Ex.P1 to P7 with respect to various parcels of land located in villages Sukhpura, Para and Chunipura, Rohtak.
3.5 With respect to acquired land located in Village Revenue Estate, Rohtak The RC, while deciding 230 reference petitions vide award dated 25.08.2015 has assessed the market value of the acquired land, as already noticed.
3.6 In this batch of reference petitions, the landowners examined PW1, Rajbir Singh, Clerk in the office of Sub-
Registrar/Tehsildar, Rohtak, PW2 Prem Singh s/o Dharam Singh, one of the owners, PW3 Chunni Lal , PW4 Parveen, the claimants in the cases, PW5 Rajbir Singh, PW6 Ashok Kumar, Patwari. The following documents were also produced, apart from the sale deeds, a compliation of which has been produced in Para 3.14.
4 of 30
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 :::
RFA-458-2016
and connected cases 5
Ex.P5 Mutation No. 13449
Ex.P6 Mutation No. 13408
Ex.P7 Mutation No. 13385
Ex.P8 Mutation No. 13382
Ex.P9 Notification under Section 4 dated
15.12.2006
Ex.P10 Copy of Award No. 33 dated 30.11.2009
Ex.P11 Site Plan
Ex.P12 Estimate of cost
Ex.P13 to P21 Photographs
Ex.P22 to P26 Statement No.19 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894
Ex.P30 Aks-Shizra
Ex.P31 Award Statement
Ex.P32 Aks-Shizra
Ex.P33 Estimated cost
Mark A1 Copy of Aks-Shizra
Mark A2 Minutes of Meeting dated 21.7.2010
Mark A3 to A5 Letters regarding market value 3.7 On the other hand, the State of Haryana examined RW1 Ram Niwas, Kanungo, posted in the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtak. The following documents were also produced, apart from the sale deeds, a compilation of which has been produced in Para 3.14.:-
Ex.R1 Notification dated 15.12.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ex.R2 Notification dated 14.12.2007 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ex.R3 Minutes of the Meeting of Divisional Level Committee, held under the chairmanship of the Commissioner, Rohtak.
Ex.R4 Oustees Scheme
Ex.R5 Award No.33 dated 30.11.2009
Ex.R10 Aks-Shizra
3.8 While deciding 21 reference petitions filed under Section 18
5 of 30
::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 :::
RFA-458-2016
and connected cases 6
of the 1894 Act with respect to acquired land located in village Para, the RC re-assessed the market value, as already noticed.
3.9 Before the RC, the landowners examined PW1 Baljit Singh, Record Keeper, PW2 Manoj Kumar Patwari, PW3, Pawan Kmar, Record keeper, PW4 Inder Singh s./o Shiv Karan, PW5 Sumer Singh, Record Keeper, PW6, Suresh Kumar, Patwari, PW7 Rajesh Ohlan, PW8, Sumer Singh, Record keeper, was once again examined as PW8 whereas Uttam Kumar, Patwari was examined as PW9.
3.10 They also produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a compliation of which has been produced in Para 3.14.:-
Ex.P28 to 54 Mutations
Ex.P55 Collector rate 2006-2007
Ex.P56 Licence of Town and Country Planning
Ex.P57 Aks-Shizra (Sector 36-A)
Ex.P58 Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated
15.12.2006
Ex.P59 Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated
14.12.2007
Ex.P60 Copy of Award No.34 dated 30.11.2009
Ex.P61 Aks-Shizra Sector 36 VPO Para
Ex.P66 to 69 Mutations
3.11 On the other hand, the State of Haryana examined RW1
Ram Niwas, Kanungo and produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a compilation of which has been produced in Para 3.14.:-
Ex.R1 Notification under Section 4 dated 15.12.2006 Ex.R2 Notification under Section 6 dated 14.12.2007 6 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 7 Ex.R3 Minutes of meeting dated 29.02.2008 of the Commissioner, Rohtak Ex.R4 Oustees Scheme Ex.R5 Copy of Award No.35 dated 30.11.2009 Ex.R9 Aks-Shazira of Sector 36A at Rohtak Ex.R10 Details of Sale deeds 3.12 By yet another award, dated 11.04.2016, the LAC decided as many as 8 applications filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The landowners, in order to prove their case, examined PW1 Abhishek Singh and produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a compilation of which has been produced in Para 3.14.:-
Ex.P1 Certified copy of the resolution passed in meeting of Board of Directors Ex.P2 Aks-Shizra 3.13 On the other hand, the State examined RW1 Suresh Kumar Patwari and produced in evidence a certified copy of judgment dated 25.08.2015 passed in Choti Devi vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 25.08.2015.
3.14 A tabulated compilation of the sale deeds produced by the respective parties in the various villages namely Bhaiyyapur, Para, Revenue Estate Rohtak has been compiled as under:-
Sr. No. Exhibit Nos. Sale Deed Date Total Area Price Price Per No. Acre Village Bhaiyyapur (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties)
1. R-9 2714 08.06.2007 357 1,43,000 19,38,711 Sq. Yards
2. R-10 9880 06.02.2007 2K 1,25,000 5,00,000
3. R-6 1491 09.05.2007 2K 4,50,000 18,00,000 7 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 8
4. R-7 2711 08.06.2007 90 36,000 19,36,000 Sq. Yards
5. R-8 2716 08.06.2007 579 2,32,000 19,39,343 Sq. Yards Village Para (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties)
6. P-1/P-10 1285 15.05.2006 17K-8.75M 92,63,671 43,49,779
7. P-10 1919 01.06.2006 5K-3.33M 27,44,850 42,50,227
8. P-11 3743 24.07.2006 5K-7M 28,59,000 42,75,140
9. P-2 1394 17.05.2006 4K-0.25M 21,31,500 42,49,719
10. P-27 1672 25.05.2006 1K - 13M 29,95,000 1,45,21,212
11. P-3 1492 19.05.2006 8K 42,00,000 42,00,000
12. P-6, P-3, P- 3797 27.07.2006 1K-16M 9,61,875 42,75,000 6, 13 P-4 1498 19.05.2006 4K-17M 24,25,000 40,00,000
14. P-5, P-7, 3832 27.07.2006 41K-13.4M 2,23,97,625 43,00,000 P-12
15. P-62 36 03.04.2006 4K - 16M 21,00,000 35,00,000
16. P-63 14875 30.03.2006 7K - 19.45M 34,90,156 35,02,194
17. P-64 171 10.04.2006 16K 71,00,000 35,50,000
18. P-65 14874 30.03.2006 7K - 14.57M 33,81,218 34,99,999
19. P-7 2844 26.06.2006 6K-4M 32,72,050 42,22,000
20. P-8, 1395 17.05.2006 10K-6.66M 54,89,600 42,50,150 P-11
21. P-9, P-9 1803 29.05.2006 5K-6.6.M 28,19,500 42,31,894
22. R-6 1956 01.06.2006 6K - 3M 11,55,000 15,02,439
23. R-7 12327 27.01.2006 4K 2,50,000 5,00,000
24. R-8 13322 21.02.2006 4K 2,50,000 5,00,000 Revenue Estate Rohtak (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties)
25. P-1, P-4, P-17 1627 24.05.2006 5.5 Biswa 7,30,000 42,47,272
26. P-12, P-6 1413 17.05.2006 11 Bigha 2,92,18,750 42,50,000
27. P-13 1636 24.05.2006 2 Bigha- 69,20,000 42,49,472 12.11 Biswa
28. P-15 1625 24.05.2006 9.2 Biswa 12,21,875 42,50,000
29. P-16 1631 24.05.2006 4.6 Biswa 6,11,000 42,50,434
30. P-19 1500 19.05.2006 3 Bigha - 3 83,67,000 42,49,904 Biswa
31. P-2, P-18, 1628 24.05.2006 13.8 Biswa 18,32,800 42,49,971 P-8
32. P-20 1501 19.05.2006 11 Biswa 14,60,000 42,47,272
33. P-22 2845 26.06.2006 2 Bigha - 62,67,031 42,21,999 7.5 Biswa
34. P-23 2863 26.06.2006 3 Bigha - 82,46,094 42,22,000 2.5 Biswa
35. P-24 1881 31.5.2006 1 Bigha - 34,79,687 42,49,999 6.2 Biswa
36. P-25, P-28 1882 31.05.2006 3 Bigha - 83,00,781 42,49,999 2.5 Biswa 8 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 9
37. P-26 1997 02.06.2006 16.43 Biswa 21,81,311 42,48,445
38. P-4, P-5, P-14 1802 29.05.2006 11 Biswa 14,69,000 42,73,454
39. P-1, P-21 2865 26.06.2006 1 Bigha - 51,00,704 42,20,908 18.67 Biswa
40. P-2, P-5, P-6 1413 17.05.2006 11 Bigha 2,92,18,750 42,50,000
41. P-3 905 04.05.2006 1 Bigha - 19 39,00,000 32,00,000 Biswa
42. P-3, P-7, 1885 31.05.2006 2 Bigha - 17 75,70,000 42,49,824 P-27 Biswa
43. P-4 831 03.05.2006 2 Bigha - 14 52,69,038 39,30,284 ½ Biswa
44. R-6 7156 17.11.2006 16 Biswa 7,50,000 15,00,000
45. R-7 2861 26.06.2006 2 Biswa 93,000 14,88,000
46. R-8 5389 19.09.2006 5 Biswa 2,35,000 15,04,000
47. R-9 13443 24.02.2006 13 Biswa 2,57,000 6,32,615 In revenue estate of Rohtak, the agricultural land is in Bigha (pukhta), Bigha (kutcha ) Biswa (pukhta) and Biswa (kutcha). 1 Bigha (pukhta) comprises of 3025 sq. yards which is equivalent to 100 marlas land whereas 1 Biswa(pukhta) is equivalent to 151.25 sq. yards. In the tabulated information extracted above, a Bigha of a land is equivalent to 3025 sq. yards as these are all Bigha(pukhta)
4. Arguments advanced by the respective counsels 4.1 Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the various awards passed by the RC on 17.09.2014, 25.08.2015, 30.10.2015 and 11.04.2016 alongwith the record of evidence produced by the respective parties before all the four RCs. They have also filed synopsis alongwith the gist of their arguments.
4.2 Learned counsel representing the landowners while criticizing the various judgments of the RC referred to above, have contended that while assessing the market value of acquired land, the RC 9 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 10 has erred in applying a deduction of 34/35% from the base value. While elaborating, they contend that the RC even after recording a finding that comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous periods have been produced, proceeded to deduct 35%. While relying upon the judgment passed in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432, the learned counsels have contended that the sale exemplar with respect to highest price is to be relied upon to assess the market value of the acquired land. It is further contended that the RC has also erred in refusing to grant escalation for the period of gap between the date of sale exemplar and the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It is also contended that the RC while dismissing the reference petitions of village Bhaiyyapur committed a mistake in overlooking the sale instances of adjoining villages, which were comparable.
4.3 Per contra, learned State counsel has contended that the sale deeds of land located in one village cannot be considered for assessing market value of the acquired land located in some other village. They further contend that the RC has correctly separately decided the cases village wise. It is further contended that the deduction on account of development cost should not be less than 50% because a very large chunk of land has been acquired. It has further been contended that the sale deeds produced by the State have been wrongly ignored while passing the awards on 25.08.2015, 30.10.2015 and 11.04.2016.
5. Discussion by this Court 5.1 Before proceeding further, it is considered appropriate to briefly discuss the reasons recorded by the RC in the various awards 10 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 11 dated 17.09.2014, 25.08.2015, 30.10.2015 and 11.04.2016.
Award (17.09.2014) 5.2 Let us first take up the award dated 17.09.2014 passed by the RC while deciding two reference petitions relating to the land located in village Bhaiyyapur. The RC, after noticing that the sale deeds of the village Sukhpura, Para, Chunipura, Rohtak have been produced by the landowners observed that since these sale instances are with respect to the land located in different villages, therefore, they cannot be relied upon. The RC also observed that through these sale deeds produced by the landowners, the various real estate companies have purchased the land. The RC further noticed that sale exemplars Ex.R6 to R-10 are with respect to the land located in village Bhaiyyapur and the price reflected is not beyond Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Hence, the RC dismissed the petition while relying upon the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana.
Analysis by this Court of Award 17.09.2014:-
5.3 It is evident from the careful reading of the judgment passed by the RC that the court was not awake to the geographical location of the acquired land viz-a-viz the location of the various parcels of land in the sale deeds produced by the owners. Moreover, the RC also did not record a finding that sale exemplar from Ex.R-6 to R-10 produced by the State are comparable sale instances of the contemporaneous period.
Award (25.08.2015) 5.4 Now, let us analyze the reasons given by the RC vide award dated 25.08.2015 while deciding cases relating to revenue estate, 11 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 12 Rohtak. The RC found that sale exemplar Ex.P1 to P4, P-27, P-28 are with respect to various parcels of land sold in the area of revenue estate, Rohtak, which are proximate to the acquired land. The RC further noticed that various real estate developing companies have purchased the land on an average price of Rs.40,27,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the RC applied 35% cut for development of infrastructural facilities like roads and sewerages, taking into consideration the development expenditure and waiting period. Thereafter, the RC deducted a sum of Rs.8,27,000/-
from the average price of Rs.40,27,000/- to arrive at a figure of Rs.32,00,000/- per acre. The RC held that the landowners of the acquired land located upto the depth of 1 acre from the National Highway shall be entitled to market value at the rate of Rs.32,00,000/-
per acre. Further, the RC again applied deduction of 35% for assessing the market value of the acquired land located beyond the depth of 1 acre from the National Highway to arrive at a figure of Rs.26,18,000/- per acre.
Analysis by this Court of Award 25.08.2015:-
5.5 It is evident from the reading of the impugned award that the RC did not realize that comparable sale deeds of contemporaneous period have been produced by the landowners to prove the market value of acquired land. It may be noted here that the landowners have produced a sale deed is with respect to 6.875 acre of land, which is of a sufficiently large parcel of the land. This parcel of land has been sold at the rate of Rs.42,50,000/- per acre. Even remaining sale instances produced by the landowners are not with respect to small parcels of land.
12 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 13 Further, the RC did not visualize the geographical location of various parcels of land which were sold through sale deeds Ex.P1 to P4, P27 and P28.
Award (30.10.2015) 5.6 Now, let us discuss the reasons given by the RC in the award dated 30.10.2015 while deciding reference applications of Village Para. The RC observed that sale instances Ex.P12 to P16 cannot be considered as these relate to the sale of various parcels of land located in different villages. Thereafter, the RC worked out the average price of sale instances Ex.P1 to P11, P27, 62 and 65 at Rs.41,83,000/- per acre.
Thereafter, the RC assumed that the sale deeds are with respect to various parcels of land in the more developed areas and therefore, decided to deduct 34 % from the average base value. Thereafter, the RC granted escalation at the rate of 7.5% per annum for a period of 6 months and arrived at a figure of Rs.32,00,000/- per acre, for the acquired land located upto the depth of 1 acre from the National Highway, whereas, the land beyond the depth of 1 acre was assessed at Rs.28,65,000/- per acre.
Analysis by this Court of Award 30.10.2015:-
5.7 In the award dated 11.04.2016, the RC followed the assessment of the Court in the previous award dated 25.08.2015.
5.8. It is evident that the RC did not notice that the acquired land is in a compact rectangular block. The RC further erred in overlooking the fact that there is no physical boundary between the villages and therefore, the RC was required to be aware about the geographical 13 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 14 location of the various parcels of the acquired land viz-a-viz that of the sale exemplars.
6. Discussion by this Court 6.1 It may be noted here that both the parties have produced various lay out plans/sectoral plan of Sector 36A prepared by the officials of the Haryana Urban Development Authority based upon revenue lay out plan. Ex.P-2 is the layout plan in the files pertaining to the record of award dated 11.04.2016. In the aforesaid layout plan, the various parcels of the land covered by the sale deeds produced by the landowners are depicted to be forming a part of the acquired land. In the record of RC's award dated 30.10.2015, two layout plans Ex.P1 and R9 have been produced. Similarly, in the RC's record of award dated 25.08.2015, three layout plans Ex.P30, P32 and R10 have been produced. In Ex.R10, the various parcels of land sold through the various sale deeds produced by the State have been marked. It also shows that some sale deeds are part of the acquired land. In the RC's record of the award dated 17.09.2014, relating to village Bhaiyyapur, Ex.R11 is the site plan. During the course of arguments, it was considered appropriate to get a comprehensive layout plan depicting the area sold through the various sale deeds produced by all the respective parties in all these cases. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, the Patwari of the area was requested to produce layout plan while marking the various parcels of land sold through the sale deeds produced by the respective parties. The same on being produced has been taken on record as Ex.'C'. On a careful study of the 14 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 15 aforesaid layout plan, it is evident that the acquired land in these three revenue estates namely Rohtak, Para and Bhaiyyapur is a compact rectangular block. On the Eastern side of the acquired land there is a Northern bye pass road which is 75 metre wide. On the Southern side, there is a railway track. On the Western side, there is a peripheral 60 metres wide road. Sector 37 is located on its Northern side. It is also evident that various parcels of land sold through the various sale deeds completely form a part of the acquired land and a tabulated compilation of the same is presented as under:-
Sr.N Exhi Sale Deed Date Total Area Price Per Acre Village o. bit No. Nos.
1 P-1 1285 15.05.2006 17K-8.75M 43,49,779 Pada (in Notification u/s 4 Para (in Judicial Record) 2 P-2 1394 17.05.2006 4K-0.25M 42,49,719 Para 3 P-10 1919 01.06.2006 5K-3.33M 42,50,227 Para 4 P-12 1413 17.05.2006 11 Bigha 42,50,000 Rohtak 5 P-13 1636 24.05.2006 2 Bigha-12.11 42,49,472 Rohtak Biswa 6 P-14 1802 29.05.2006 11 Biswa 42,73,454 Rohtak 7 P-15 1625 24.05.2006 9.2 Biswa 42,50,000 Rohtak 8 P-16 1631 24.05.2006 4.6 Biswa 42,50,434 Rohtak 9 P-17 1627 24.05.2006 5.5 Biswa 42,47,272 Rohtak 10 P-18 1628 24.05.2006 13.8 Biswa 42,49,971 Rohtak 11 P-20 1501 19.05.2006 11 Biswa 42,47,272 Rohtak 12 P-23 2863 26.06.2006 3 Bigha - 2.5 42,22,000 Rohtak Biswa 13 P-24 1881 31.5.2006 1 Bigha - 6.3 42,33,839 Rohtak Biswa 14 P-25 1882 31.05.2006 3 Bigha - 2.5 42,49,999 Rohtak Biswa 15 P-26 1997 02.06.2006 16.43 Biswa 42,48,445 Rohtak 16 P-27 1885 31.05.2006 2 Bigha - 17 42,49,824 Rohtak Mar Biswa k-A3 17 P-3 1492 19.05.2006 8K 42,00,000 Para
15 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 16 18 P-4 1498 19.05.2006 4K-17M 40,00,000 Para 19 P-6 3797 27.07.2006 1K-16M 42,75,000 Para 20 P-63 14875 30.03.2006 7K - 19.45M 35,02,194 Para 21 P-64 171 10.04.2006 16K 35,50,000 Para 22 P-65 14874 30.03.2006 7K - 14.57M 34,99,999 Para 23 P-8 1395 17.05.2006 10K-6.66M 42,50,150 Para 24 P-9 1803 29.05.2006 5K-6.6.M 42,31,894 Para 25 P-7 2844 26.06.2006 6 K-4M 42,22,000 Para 6.2 It may be noted here that not only the area covered by the sale deeds produced by the landowners is part of the acquired land but the various parcels of land sold through the sale deeds produced by the State are also part of the acquired land. Further, some of the parcels of land sold through the following sale deeds produced by the landowners partially form a part of the acquired land:-
Sr. Exhibit Sale Deed Date Total Area Price Per Acre Village No Nos. No. 1 P-5 3832 27.07.2006 41K-13.4M 43,00,000 Para 2 P-19 1500 19.05.2006 3 Bigha - 3 42,49,904 Rohtak Biswa 3 P-1 2865 26.06.2006 1 Bigha - 42,20,908 Rohtak 18.67 Biswa 6.3 Through all these sale deeds referred to above, a very large chunk of land has been purchased by the various real estates development companies in order to create a land Bank so as to use it for developing a big colony. From a perusal of the aforesaid sale deeds, it is evident that the land has been sold at a price of Rs.42,50,000/- per acre approximately. All these sale deeds are with respect to the period between May to June, 2006 i.e around six months prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Now, let us examine the 16 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 17 various sale deeds produced by the State.
6.4 As far as sale deeds no.1956, 12327 and 13322 produced by the State with respect to land located in village Para is concerned, it is important to note that the aforesaid sale instances pertain to land comprised in rectangle no.71 whereas the acquired land of village Para is from rectangle no.5, 6, 7 and 13, 14, 15, and 21. The land comprised in rectangle no.71 is not a part of the layout plan and therefore, it is not possible to compare its location.
6.5 Similarly, sale deed no. 3797 dated 27.07.2006 is with respect to 1 kanal and 16 marlas of land which is also of a comparatively small area. Further, the sale instance (dated 17.11.2006) bearing no.
7156 with respect to land measuring 16 biswas and sale deed no. 263 (dated 26.06.2006) is part of the acquired land. Similarly, sale deed no.
2861 (dated 26.06.2006) with respect to land measuring 2 biswas is also a part of the acquired land. Similar is the position with respect to sale deed no. 5389 (dated 19.09.2006). However, these sale deeds are not only stray sale deeds but also with respect to a comparatively small area.
Further, as already noticed, the landowners are entitled to expect highest price of the land and therefore, the Court should not deny them the aforesaid benefit particularly when the land has been taken away compulsorily. Hence, the aforesaid sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana are not found appropriate to rely upon to assess the market value. There are sale deeds which are consistently reflecting the price at the rate of Rs.42,50,000/- approximately. In fact, there are as many as 10 sale deeds reflecting consistent price at the rate of Rs.42,50,000 per 17 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 18 acre, therefore, this Court has no difficulty in assessing the market value at the same rate.
6.6 Further, a bare look at the layout plan produced by the State in the High Court shows that the sale instances Ex.R6, R7, R8 and R9 with respect to village Bhaiyyapur are at a sufficient distance from the acquired land. In fact, these parcels of land are located on the other side of the railway line and that also at a distant place. Similarly, sale deeds produced by the State bearing no. 1956, 12327 and 13322 relating to the parcels of land located in village Para are not shown to be a part of the acquired land. Moreover, the sale instances are R6, R7 and R8 are depicted to be far away across the peripheral road located on the western side. Hence, it will not be appropriate to asses the market value of the acquired land on the basis of sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana.
6.7 Now this Bench proceeds to discuss on the question of deduction on account of development cost or the area required for carving out roads, streets, parks and other common facilities. This aspect has been examined by this Court in detail in Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, RFA no. 3000/2016 decided on 15.11.2021.
The relevant discussion on this aspect is extracted as under:-
"7.14 The principle underlined by all these judgments is that while assessing the market value, the court is required to apply the wisdom of a common man and arrive at a figure which a willing seller will get from a voluntary purchaser for the property. Once the market value of the acquired agricultural land is being assessed and many sales exemplars of considerably big sized plots of the agricultural land are available, the application of 18 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 19 cut/deduction for development, in the considered opinion of the Court, is not justified unless the court is assessing the market value of a land where the sale exemplars produced before the Court are of relatively small sized plots or are being used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. The deduction can be applied when comparable sale exemplar is of a plot of a very small size as compared to the acquired land in order to moderate the difference between wholesale and retail prices as observed by the Supreme court in judgment passed in Lal Chand (supra). The appropriate percentage of cut can also be applied if the sale exemplar is of a plot which was being used or was capable of being used for different purposes like residential, commercial or industrial. The development cut can also be applied when the comparable sale exemplar is of a plot which is located at a key position like near the road, market, developed residential colony or commercial establishments. There can be more than one reasons to apply the development cut. However, if the price is reduced while assessing the market value of the acquired land, without observing the aforesaid principles while making the deduction in the facts and circumstances of the individual cases, it shall be against the statutory intendment. In a case where the court is making an assessment with respect to an undeveloped acquired land as an undeveloped area and the sale exemplar produced for such determination is also of an undeveloped piece of land of reasonable size, then any deduction which is made on account of development work or development cost, in the considered opinion of this Court, shall not be considered appropriate. This can be explained by an example. Hypothetically, if a farmer purchases a sufficiently large chunk of land just before the notification under Section 4. On the acquisition of the land purchased, he is likely to produce the sale exemplar of the land purchased by him. If the court treats the sale exemplar as the base value and thereafter applies a cut or deduction on account of development cut or development cost per se, he shall stand deprived of the market value paid by him while purchasing the land. It would be against the spirit/intention of the Act. While assessing the market value of the undeveloped/agricultural land, the court is not required to work out the market value of the developed land or plot. In such circumstances, the application of development cut in the considered 19 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 20 opinion of the court would not be appropriate and justified. The cut/deduction is applied by the courts in order to arrive at a correct figure representing the true market value of the acquired land on the relevant date. This method has been devised by the Courts in order to tide over the situations where exactly comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period are not available. The court, while making adjustments or treating the prices of the developed plots of smaller size as the base, endeavours to work out the fair market value of the acquired land.
7.15 This matter can be examined from another angle. The intention of the legislature is not to put the landowners who stand deprived of the land through double whammy. On the one hand, their immovable property is compulsorily taken away, whereas on the other hand, they are not being compensated adequately due to the deduction towards the development. This cannot be the intention of the legislature. The fundamental intention of the Legislature has always been to make the land laws fair, just and reasonable towards the sufferers of compulsory land acquisition.
7.16 Once a large chunk of agricultural land is being acquired for carving out a residential/commercial or industrial colony and the sale exemplars of plots of reasonable size of agricultural land are available, then in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to apply a development cut for the purpose of assessment either towards development cost or towards the area to be used for passages, roads, drains, parks etc. The landowner stands in the shoes of a loser even if some part of the acquired land is being used for providing common facilities. The landowner does not gain anything exclusively on account of reservation of land for common facilities. In fact, the landowner suffers a dual loss. On the one hand, he is deprived of the acquired land and on the other hand, he does not receive a fair and appropriate amount towards the involuntary deprivation.
7.17 There is yet another aspect of the matter. The development agency/organization/colonizer or the government do not sell the developed plots on the market value assessed by the court. The plots are sold while determining price on basis of the demand and supply. Usually, the plots are sold on the basis of price determined on per sq. feet or per sq. yard. basis and 20 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 21 not on per acre. Therefore, certain percentage of land utilized for carrying out development activities like passages, roads, drains, parks etc. is to be accounted for by the developer and not the landowner. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the development cost incurred or to be incurred for providing common facilities is also required to be borne by the developer.
7.18 It is well settled that while assessing the market value, the court is required to adopt a pragmatic approach. The landowners who stand deprived of the property cannot be permitted to be denied of an adequate and just compensation as well. This is the responsibility of the courts to see that the landowners are adequately compensated. The learned counsel representing the parties have failed to draw the attention of the court to any precedent which lays down that while assessing the market value, the application of development cut or deduction on the base value is mandatory."
6.8 Further, the additional judgments relied upon by the State counsel have been elaborately discussed while deciding the appeal in 'Sant Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others' RFA 6193/2015 decided on 17.02.2022 in the following manner:-
5.3.1 This Court has carefully and respectfully read the judgments relied upon by the State's counsel. In Ram Kanwar's case (Supra), the Supreme Court while upholding the order of the High Court noticed that there was an abnormal increase of more than 100% within a period of less than four months. In that context, the Court observed that such a sale deed could not be relied upon without making the necessary deductions to assess the market value at par with the estimated market value of the acquired land. In the respectful opinion of the Court, such observations do not mean that in each and every case, the deduction/cut is mandatory. This Bench has also carefully read the judgment passed in Kasturi (Supra) in which the land was acquired to develop Sectors 13 and 23 at Bhiwani. The High Court relied upon the sale instance (Ex. P-7) with respect to land measuring 3 Kanal located on the main road which is claimed to be have the potential to be used for 21 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 22 commercial purposes. The High Court applied a deduction of 20% after finding that the sale instance relied upon is not similar to the acquired land. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, approved the decision of the High Court. In the considered opinion of the court, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court on the ground that there was a dissimilarity between the parcel of land covered by the sale instance and the acquired land. In the humble opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgments in Ram Kanwar's case (supra) and Kasturi's case (supra) do not, as a ratio decidendi, lay down, that even if the comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period have been produced, still, it is necessary to apply some amount of deduction. Deduction is to be applied in a case where the Court finds that there is a dissimilarity between the acquired land and the land sold through the concerned sale exemplar."
6.9 It may be noted here that there is no physical boundary between the agricultural land of various villages. The land between the two villages can be in continuity if the owner owns the continuous parcel of land in both the villages or it can be divided by a few inches or one foot wide earthern dividing line or killa line which is few inches higher than the agricultural land on which at one point of time only one person can barely walk. It is similar to the dividing boundary marked by the various owners while segregating their land from the neighbour. There is no material to prove that when all other parameters are equal, only with the location of the land in one village or other contiguous villages the market value of various parcels of land located in different villages change significantly irrespective of the fact that these parcels are contiguous.
6.10 Further, it is by now well settled that the landowners are 22 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 23 entitled to the highest price fetched by the various owners of comparable sale deed during contemporaneous period. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the following observations made in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector 1969 Madras Law Journal, 45 (SC) :-
"46-47 It seems to us that there is substance in the first contention of Mr Ram Reddy. After all when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to say that he should be given the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. It is not disputed that the transaction represented by Ext. R-19 was a few months prior to the notification under Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction and that it was entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller. The land comprised in the sale deed is 11 grounds and was sold at Rs. 1961 per ground. The land covered by Ext. R- 27 was also sold before the notification but after the land comprised in Ext. R-19 was sold. It is true that this land was sold at Rs. 1096 per ground. This, however, is apparently because of two circumstances. One is that betterment levy at Rs. 500 per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the other that the land comprised in it is very much more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so. Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."
6.11 Similarly, while deciding Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa 2010 (13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court, once again, re-interated the same principle in the following manner:-
20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a 23 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 24 bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where however there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price.
But where the values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower value sale is on account of undervaluation or other price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging cannot be resorted to. We may refer to two decisions of this Court in this behalf.
6.12 In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust's case (supra), it has been held as under:-
"17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.
6.13 It is evident from the perusal of the table that most of the sale deeds of the acquired land, information whereof is compiled in para 6.1 are in the price ranging from Rs.42,50,000/- per acre. Ex.P14 is a sale instance of 11 biswas of land which has been sold at the rate of Rs.42,73,454/- However, this is a small piece of land as compared to the various other sale instances. Hence, it would not be appropriate to rely 24 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 25 upon Ex.P14. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 is of 15.12.2006 whereas most of the sale instances of the acquired land are with respect to sale during the month of May or June 2006. Thus, there is a gap of six months. Hence, the landowners are held entitled to escalation of the market value for this 6 months period at the rate of 10% per annum, which works out to Rs.44,62,500/- per acre
7. Decision:-
Accordingly, these appeals are allowed while assessing the market value of the acquired land as on 15.12.2006 at rate of Rs.44,62,500/-per acre.
02.03.2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr. No. Case No. Petitioner's name Respondent's name
STATE OF HARYANA
1. RFA-1929-2016 SMT. CHHOTI DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
2. RFA-1235-2016 RK KHANNA & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
3. RFA-435-2016 KARAN SINGH AND ORS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
4. RFA-1229-2016 PHOOLAWANTI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
5. RFA-2525-2016 SIRI PAL AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
6. RFA-1230-2016 RAJNI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
7. RFA-2246-2016 KRISHAN LAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
8. RFA-2871-2016 SUNITA AND ANR ETC STATE OF HARYANA
9. RFA-469-2016 AZAD SINGH AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
10. RFA-2442-2017 RAM KARAN AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
11. RFA-1003-2016 RAM BHAGAT AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
12. RFA-1999-2016 RISAL SINGH AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
13. RFA-2792-2016 SUNDER LAL AND ORS 25 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 26 STATE OF HARYANA
14. RFA-1233-2016 SUSHIL KUMARI & ORS KULDEEP KUMAR @ STATE OF HARYANA
15. RFA-618-2016 KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
16. RFA-1232-2016 KITABO & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
17. RFA-619-2016 PUNEET AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
18. RFA-1227-2016 VED PRAKASH & ORS YOGENDER KUMAR AND STATE OF HARYANA
19. RFA-2443-2017 ORS. & ORS SATBIR SINGH AND STATE OF HARYANA
20. RFA-433-2016 OTHER AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
21. RFA-1231-2016 URMIL SHARMA AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
22. RFA-2182-2016 JAGBIR SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
23. RFA-24-2016 VIPIN KHANNA & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
24. RFA-2157-2016 CHARAN SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
25. RFA-2524-2016 RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS RAJ KUMAR (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA
26. RFA-4435-2016 THROUGH LRS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
27. RFA-2444-2017 PARVATI AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
28. RFA-718-2016 HARINDER SINGH AND ORS
29. RFA-630-2016 SMT. MUKESH LATA STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA
30. RFA-3390-2017 KRISHNA & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
31. RFA-1226-2016 PUSHPA SIKKA & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
32. RFA-4085-2016 SURJEET AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
33. RFA-2158-2016 CHUNNI LAL AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
34. RFA-1234-2016 KRISHAN LAL AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
35. RFA-1228-2016 HARPAL SINGH & ORS M/S JYOTIMA STATE OF HARYANA
36. RFA-460-2016 COLONISERS PVT LTD AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
37. RFA-4963-2016 WAZIR SINGH & ORS M/S DIPESH REALTORS STATE OF HARYANA
38. RFA-1143-2016 PVT LTD AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
39. RFA-4958-2016 NARESH KUMAR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
40. RFA-2310-2016 PARTAP & ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
41. RFA-5312-2017 SHANTI DEVI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
42. RFA-1730-2017 PARTAP SINGH AND ORS 26 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 27 M/S ASHWAMEDHA STATE OF HARYANA
43. RFA-1144-2016 COLONISERS PVT LTD AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
44. RFA-4961-2016 RAJESH OHLAN & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
45. RFA-4964-2016 JAIPAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
46. RFA-2684-2016 SUBHASH AND ORS.
& ORS ZILE SINGH SINCE STATE OF HARYANA
47. RFA-2485-2021 DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
48. RFA-159-2017 SHALLU OHLAN & ORS M/S SHYAMLI PROJECTS STATE OF HARYANA
49. RFA-1142-2016 PVT LTD AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
50. RFA-1930-2016 JAGDISH CHAND & ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
51. RFA-4962-2016 RAJPAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
52. RFA-4959-2016 JAGDISH & ORS RAGHVINDER SINGH AND STATE OF HARYANA
53. RFA-2685-2016 ORS. & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
54. RFA-4960-2016 SUSHMA & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
55. RFA-1545-2016 SATPRIA & ANR & ORS M/S BANSIWALA STATE OF HARYANA
56. RFA-459-2016 REALTORS PVT LTD AND ORS SHEKHAR CHAND STATE OF HARYANA
57. RFA-1359-2017 DECEASED TH LRS AND AND ORS ORS M/S SATKARTAR STATE OF HARYANA
58. RFA-458-2016 REALTORS PVT LTD AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
59. RFA-1171-2016 PRAKASH RANI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
60. RFA-1225-2016 GIAN CHAND AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
61. RFA-4458-2016 SMT. VIDYAWANTI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
62. RFA-1004-2016 SMT. SUNITA ETC STATE OF HARYANA
63. RFA-1267-2016 ATTAM PRAKASH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
64. RFA-1902-2016 RAJ RANI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
65. RFA-1562-2016 RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
66. RFA-3941-2016 KAPUR CHAND AND ORS.
AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
67. RFA-2159-2016 SHANTA DITTI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
68. RFA-4012-2016 SHYAM SUNDER AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
69. RFA-2755-2016 SMT. VIDYAWANTI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
70. RFA-2179-2016 MANGE RAM AND ANR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
71. RFA-1015-2016 VIJAY SINGH AND ORS.
AND ORS 27 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 28 SUSHILA DAHIYA STATE OF HARYANA
72. RFA-1901-2016 (DECEASED) THR LR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
73. RFA-1017-2016 JIWANI AND ORS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
74. RFA-1005-2016 RANJIT SINGH AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
75. RFA-1172-2016 SHER SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
76. RFA-2160-2016 KRISHNA DEVI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
77. RFA-2754-2016 RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS VEDPAL SINCE DECEASED STATE OF HARYANA
78. RFA-2756-2016 THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS VEDPAL SINCE DECEASED STATE OF HARYANA
79. RFA-379-2017 THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
80. RFA-1563-2016 SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
81. RFA-2162-2016 RAHEESH AHMED & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
82. RFA-1564-2016 HAWA SINGH AND ORS VEDPAL SINCE DECEASED STATE OF HARYANA
83. RFA-2753-2016 THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
84. RFA-1016-2016 RAJMAL AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
85. RFA-1114-2018 RAJINDER AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
86. RFA-1022-2016 BUDH RAM AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
87. RFA-2097-2016 JAGDISH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
88. RFA-1568-2016 BIMLA DEVI AND ORS M/S SATKARTAR STATE OF HARYANA
89. RFA-4667-2016 REALTORS PVT.LTD. & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
90. RFA-1573-2016 MEENU AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
91. RFA-487-2016 SURESH KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
92. RFA-1574-2016 RAJBIR SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
93. RFA-1570-2016 SURENDER KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
94. RFA-1566-2016 JAGBIR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
95. RFA-1571-2016 HAR PIYARI AND ORS M/S VARADRAJ STATE OF HARYANA
96. RFA-4664-2016 BUILDWELL PVT.LTD. & ORS.
OM PARKASH SINCE STATE OF HARYANA
97. RFA-1117-2018 DECEASED THROUGH LRS & ORS AND ORS PARVEEN KUMAR AND STATE OF HARYANA
98. RFA-1020-2016 ANR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
99. RFA-1569-2016 PREM SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
100. RFA-1815-2016 PARVEEN KUMAR AND ORS 28 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 29 STATE OF HARYANA
101. RFA-295-2018 PARMOD KUMAR AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
102. RFA-1014-2016 FATEH SINGH AND ANR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
103. RFA-1021-2016 RAMPHAL AND ANR AND ORS KANHIYA LAL SINCE STATE OF HARYANA
104. RFA-1536-2021 DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
105. RFA-1215-2016 BHALE RAM AND ORS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
106. RFA-1572-2016 SUNEHRI DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
107. RFA-2105-2016 SUNITA ETC M/S BANSIWALA STATE OF HARYANA
108. RFA-4665-2016 REALTORS PVT.LTD. & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
109. RFA-1711-2018 KRISHAN AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
110. RFA-1118-2018 SATBIR SINGH AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
111. RFA-1019-2016 RISAL SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
112. RFA-1567-2016 ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS M/S SONIKA PROPERTIES STATE OF HARYANA
113. RFA-2462-2017 PVT.LTD. & ORS.
RAM PARKASH @ OM STATE OF HARYANA
114. RFA-1116-2018 PARKASH AND ORS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
115. RFA-1991-2016 CHARAN DASS AND ORS M/S NACHIKETA STATE OF HARYANA
116. RFA-4666-2016 PROJECTS PVT.LTD. & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
117. RFA-1018-2016 RAMESHWAR AND ORS AND ORS M/S SAMDARSHI STATE OF HARYANA
118. RFA-4661-2016 PROMOTERS & & ORS.
DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
STATE OF HARYANA
119. RFA-1259-2021 SURENDER AND ORS AND OTHERS MS/ DIPESH REALTORS STATE OF HARYANA
120. RFA-4663-2016 PVT.LTD. & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
121. RFA-1565-2016 MOTI LAL AND ORS M/S JYOTIMA STATE OF HARYANA
122. RFA-4662-2016 COLONISERS PVT.LTD. & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
123. RFA-4453-2016 RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
124. RFA-1161-2016 RAJ MADAAN AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
125. RFA-1168-2016 KHAIRATI LAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
126. RFA-1163-2016 KRISHAN CHANDER AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
127. RFA-1166-2016 KRISHAN LAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
128. RFA-1514-2017 YOGENDER AND ANR & ORS 29 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 ::: RFA-458-2016 and connected cases 30 STATE OF HARYANA
129. RFA-2002-2016 SMT. SUNIL KUMARI ETC CHAND RAM (DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA
130. RFA-1900-2016 THRO LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA
131. RFA-2001-2016 NATHO DEVI AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
132. RFA-1516-2017 RAJPAL SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
133. RFA-2178-2016 DHANPATI AND ORS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
134. RFA-1990-2016 JAI SINGH AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
135. RFA-2156-2016 SURAJ PRAKASH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
136. RFA-2982-2016 OMBIR AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
137. RFA-1164-2016 SUSHILA DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
138. RFA-3238-2017 SATOSH KUMARI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
139. RFA-1560-2016 DEVINDER KUMAR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
140. RFA-1167-2016 SMT. NEELAM & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
141. RFA-1162-2016 MOHINDER LAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
142. RFA-2000-2016 JASWANT AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
143. RFA-2161-2016 KAMLESH RANI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
144. RFA-1165-2016 KASHMIRI LAL AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
145. RFA-1561-2016 SMT. USHA AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA
146. RFA-1170-2016 SHEELA WANTI & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
147. RFA-1515-2017 NAFE SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
148. RFA-4102-2016 SURJEET AND ORS ETC STATE OF HARYANA
149. RFA-2683-2017 KARTAR SINGH AND ORS AND ORS SIDHESHWAR @ STATE OF HARYANA
150. RFA-2752-2016 SUDESHWAR AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA
151. RFA-1512-2017 RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS NARENDER SINGH @ STATE OF HARYANA
152. RFA-1513-2017 NARENDER KUMAR AND & ORS ORS STATE OF HARYANA
153. RFA-1559-2016 ANIL KUMAR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA
154. RFA-1169-2016 RAMESH CHANDER & ORS 02.03.2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) rekha JUDGE 30 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 01-05-2022 01:13:46 :::