Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Harbhajan Singh And Others on 20 January, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 3926 of 2010 ( 1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 3926 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 20.1.2011
State of Haryana ...Appellant
vs
Harbhajan Singh and others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 3926 to 3929 of 2010, filed by the State of Haryana, seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals.
The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of New Kumthal Minor from R. D. 0-9500 Tail off taking R. D. 36687-LSGC vide notification dated 29.11.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Haryana, pertaining to Village Ratta Khera, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide his award dated 31.1.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 7,02,000/- per acre vide award dated 5.12.2009. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court.
Learned Counsel for the State submitted that learned Court below has not given any reasoning while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. He further argued that the evidence produced by the State was totally ignored by the learned court below which justified the award of the Collector. He further submitted that learned Court below has erred in law while RFA No. 3926 of 2010 ( 2) granting ` 7,02,000/- per acre as price for the acquired land on the basis of Ex.P- 1, the policy issued by the State Government on 6.4.2007 because the notification under Section 4 in the case in hand was issued on 29.11.2004. Therefore, the policy cannot be applied retrospectively. The same was applicable only for the acquisitions carried out subsequent thereto.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 29.11.2004 and the award was announced by the Collector on 31.1.2006.
There is no dispute that Government has issued a policy on 6.4.2007 (Ex. P-1), whereby the minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land were further revised. The relevant extract of policy dated 6.4.2007, is as under:-
"Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana.
Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005.
Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows:
i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub- Rs.12.50 lacs per acre.
Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State.
iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. State.
(These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894).
2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows:
i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Rs.16.00 lacs per acre.
Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State.
RFA No. 3926 of 2010 ( 3)i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre Gurgaon.
iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre. State.
3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
In my opinion, the aforesaid letter can be considered as a piece of evidence because as per the policy letter the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 31.1.2006 whereas the policy Ex. P-1 comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007 just about 14 months later.
The learned court below has rightly considered the policy as relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land for the reason that the process to frame or revise a policy starts in advance, finalisation thereof takes time. The gap period is not too much and for the gap period the court below has decreased the value of the land after deducting 14% from ` 8,00,000/-. Even otherwise, the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of contruction of new New Kumthal Minor. The landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance though their land has been divided into two parts.
Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of appeals filed by the State will not affect the merits of the appeal of the landowners in case filed by them. The same shall be considered independently.
20.1.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge