Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S. Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 September, 2008
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [1]
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : September 05,2008
1. R. F. A. No. 2587 of 2004
M/s. Opera House Creations Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
2. R. F. A. No. 2219 of 2004
Laxmi and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
3. R. F. A. No. 2416 of 2004
Dalip Singh ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
4. R. F. A. No. 2417 of 2004
Nafe Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
5. R. F. A. No. 2418 of 2004
Prabhu ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
6. R. F. A. No. 2419 of 2004
Om Parkash and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
7. R. F. A. No. 2425 of 2004
Sujan Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and another .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [2]
8. R. F. A. No. 2426 of 2004
Davinder Kumar and others .... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and another .... Respondents
9. R. F. A. No. 2427 of 2004
Bhagmal and another ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
10. R. F. A. No. 2428 of 2004
Kartar Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
11. R. F. A. No. 2429 of 2004
Mam Chand and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
12. R. F. A. No. 2430 of 2004
Khem Ram and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
13. R. F. A. No. 2431 of 2004
Ram Singh ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
14. R. F. A. No. 2432 of 2004
Narain and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
15. R. F. A. No. 2483 of 2004
Narain and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [3]
16. R. F. A. No. 2484 of 2004
Smt. Anaro ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
17. R. F. A. No. 2485 of 2004
Matadin and another ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
18. R. F. A. No. 2486 of 2004
Sultan and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
19. R. F. A. No. 2502 of 2004
Rajesh Khurana ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
20. R. F. A. No. 2503 of 2004
Dior Import & Export (P) Ltd. ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
21. R. F. A. No. 2504 of 2004
Surender and another ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
22. R. F. A. No. 2505 of 2004
Kailash Rani ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
23. R. F. A. No. 2525 of 2004
Pardeep Kumar and another .... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [4]
24. R. F. A. No. 2561 of 2004
Amar Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and another .... Respondents
25. R. F. A. No. 2562 of 2004
Ram Dayal and others ..... Appellants
vs
Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
26. R. F. A. No. 2563 of 2004
Hans Ram and another ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and another .... Respondents
27. R. F. A. No. 2588 of 2004
M/s. Magnolia Blosam ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
28. R. F. A. No. 2589 of 2004
M/s. Opera House Export Ltd. ..... Appellant
vs
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
29. R. F. A. No. 2660 of 2004
Surat Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
30. R. F. A. No. 2683 of 2004
Ganpat and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
31. R. F. A. No. 2687 of 2004
Om Parkash and another ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [5]
32. R. F. A. No. 2688 of 2004
Rohtash (deceased) through LRs. and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
33. R. F. A. No. 91 of 2005
Prabhati and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
34. R. F. A. No. 92 of 2005
Ram Mehar ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
35. R. F. A. No. 93 of 2005
Hari Kishan ..... Appellant
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
36. R. F. A. No. 94 of 2005
Smt. Basanti Devi and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
37. R. F. A. No. 164 of 2005
Hari Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and another .... Respondents
38. R. F. A. No. 268 of 2005
Hari Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
39. R. F. A. No. 269 of 2005
Shiv Lal and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [6]
40. R. F. A. No. 270 of 2005
Ram Mehar and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
41. R. F. A. No. 271 of 2005
Siri Bhagwan and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and another .... Respondents
42. R. F. A. No. 272 of 2005
Mange Ram and another ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
43. R. F. A. No. 343 of 2005
Shri Krishan @ Shri Kishan and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
44. R. F. A. No. 344 of 2005
Shri Ram and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
45. R. F. A. No. 512 of 2005
Bal Ram and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
46. R. F. A. No. 546 of 2005
Ved Parkash and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [7]
47. R. F. A. No. 577 of 2005
Jai Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
48. R. F. A. No. 578 of 2005
Jai Narain and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
49. R. F. A. No. 579 of 2005
Satish Kumar Yadav and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
50. R. F. A. No. 857 of 2005
Balbir Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
51. R. F. A. No. 858 of 2005
Jai Lal and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
52. R. F. A. No. 859 of 2005
Udme ..... Appellant
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
53. R. F. A. No. 860 of 2005
Jit Ram and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
54. R. F. A. No. 861 of 2005
Nawal Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [8]
55. R. F. A. No. 862 of 2005
Giani and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
56. R. F. A. No. 863 of 2005
Bhoop Singh and another ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
57. R. F. A. No. 864 of 2005
Rampal and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
58. R. F. A. No. 1290 of 2005
Udami and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
59. R. F. A. No. 1291 of 2005
Dharam Pal and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
60. R. F. A. No. 1292 of 2005
Satish Kumar Yadav ..... Appellant
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
61. R. F. A. No. 1442 of 2005
Giani ..... Appellant
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [9]
62. R. F. A. No. 1443 of 2005
Jagat Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
63. R. F. A. No. 1938 of 2005
Mangat and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
64. R. F. A. No. 1939 of 2005
Mool Chand and others ..... Appellants
vs
The Land Acquisition Collector-cum-
S. D. O. (Civil), Gurgaon and others .... Respondents
65. R. F. A. No. 2895 of 2005
Mawasi and another ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
66. R. F. A. No. 2831 of 2006
Raghbir and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
67. R. F. A. No. 4143 of 2006
Mohinder Singh and others ..... Appellants
vs
The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellants in
R.F.A. Nos. 2219, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2525, 2587,
2588, 2589, 2660, 2687 and 2688 of 2004 and
512 of 2005.
Mr. G.K. Chawla, Advocate for the appellants in
R.F.A. Nos. 2561, 2562 and 2563 of 2004, 164,
343 and 344 of 2005.
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [10]
Mr. Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for the appellants in
R.F.A. Nos. 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2425, 2426, 2427,
2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2483, 2484, 2485, 2486
of 2004 and 2895 of 2005.
Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants in R.F.A.
Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 268, 269,270,271, 272, 577, 578,
579 of 2005 and 2831 and 4143 of 2006.
Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.3 .
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned R.F.A. No 2587, 2219, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2425, 2426, 2427, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2483, 2484, 2485, 2486, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2525, 2561, 2562, 2563, 2588, 2589, 2660, 2683, 2687, 2688, of 2004, 91, 92, 93, 94, 164, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 343, 344, 512, 546, 577, 578, 579, 857, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863, 864, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1442, 1443, 1938, 1939 and 2895 of 2005 and 2831 and 4143 of 2006 as the same arise out of the common award of the learned Court below. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No.2587 of 2004.
The land owners are in appeal before this Court against the award of the learned Court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 256 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas in Village Manesar was acquired for setting up of Industrial Model Township, Manesar vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 30.4.1994 which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 30.3.1995. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') on 28.3.1997 determining the value of the land at Rs. 3,67,400/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections which were referred for consideration by the learned Court below. Considering the material facts placed on record by the parties, the learned Court below awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.
R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [11]6,51,994.13 per acre for `A' class land, i.e., situated around 500 yards from the National Highway No.8 and Rs. 3,91,196.97 per acre for `B' class land situated in the interior.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that no independent evidence as such was led in the present case and reliance was merely on the award of the Reference Court in case of land acquired in the same village vide notification dated 15.11.1994. The submission is that keeping in view gap in the two notifications a reasonable cut @ 12% be applied and value of land be assessed accordingly. It is further submitted that in the peculiar facts of the case, value of the land can be assessed on the basis of value determined for subsequent notification.
In R.F.A. No. 2699 of 2003 -Pran Sukh and others v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.5.2006, this Court, while considering the acquisition of land measuring 1490 acres 3 kanals and 17 marlas in Villages Manesar, Naharpur Kasan, Khoh and Kasan vide notification dated 15.11.1994, determined the value of the land at Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre without any categorisation. In the reference by the land owners before the Court below, they had relied upon the award of the Reference Court regarding the acquisition made in the same village vide notification dated 15.11.1994. Prior thereto, land reference before the Court below, which is subject matter of R.F.A. No. 2525 of 2004-- Pardeep Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others, the State itself had relied upon the earlier award given by the Reference Court with regard to the acquisition made in the same village vide notification dated 15.11.1994. This necessarily meant that the State is not disputing the quality, location and potentiality of the land involved in the present case with reference to the land acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994.
In view of these facts on record, now the question for determination by this Court is as to what was the value of the land under acquisition in the present set of appeals on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that first acquisition for development of Industrial Model Township at Manesar was started with the acquisition of land vide notification dated 30.4.1994. This R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [12] acquisition was for Phase-I thereof. For development of Phase-II of Industrial Model Township, Manesar, the land was acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994. Thereafter, subsequently for Phases-III, IV and V, the acquisitions were made in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 respectively. Once the acquisition process for setting up of an Industrial Model Township at Manesar was started with the acquisition of land vide notification dated 30.4.1994, certainly the people in the area will become more interested in that area. The value of the property in the vicinity will certainly shoot up with the proposed planned development of the area. It is not disputed that there is no independent evidence on record in the present case showing the transactions of sale or purchase of land in the area. The only reference is to the award of the learned Court below with regard to the acquisition of land vide notification dated 15.11.1994 pertaining to the acquisition of land for Phase-II of Industrial Model Township, Manesar. The amount of compensation for acquisition of land vide notification dated 15.11.1994 was further enhanced by this Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra) to Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre. It has come on record in that case that the transaction which has been primarily relied upon by this Court for determining the value of the land is Ex.P.1. It has further come on record in that case that even the agreement for the aforesaid land was entered into on 31.5.1994, i.e., after the acquisition of land in dispute in the present set of appeals, meaning thereby that the effect of the notification had come into existence as the people knew that the land in the vicinity is being acquired for the planned development of the area and therefore, in my opinion, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that reasonable cut @ 12% per annum be applied and compensation be assessed is totally misconceived.
As against this, in my opinion, keeping in view the fact that before the reference Court even the State had relied upon the award given for the acquisition of land in the same village vide notification dated 15.11.1994, it would be reasonable if a cut of 20% is applied out of the value of the land determined for acquisition made vide notification dated 15.11.1994 for the same village and for the same purpose.
Accordingly, while reducing a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre out of Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre granted as compensation for the land R.F.A. No. 2587 of 2004 [13] acquired vide notification dated 15.11.1994, the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre. They shall also be entitled to all other statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
The appeals are allowed with costs.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 05 ,2008 mk