Punjab-Haryana High Court
Siri Pal vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 9 January, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M)
And Other Connected Cases
Date of Decision: 09.01.2023
Reserved On: 21.12.2022
Siri Pal
... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate,
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Surya Kumar, Mr. Ranvijay Singh Yadav,
Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Mr. Ashwani Gaur,
Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, Advocates and
Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Parul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the landowners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
for the HSIIDC.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. Introduction and Background 1.1 While praying for the modification of the market value of the acquired land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") which has been affirmed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC"), the landowners have filed this batch of appeals (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment). 1.2 The notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition 1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 2 And Other Connected Cases Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") and the awards passed by the LAC as well as the RC are common. In fact, the RC has consolidated all the 48 petitions in the LAC Case No. 93 dated 28.08.2015 titled as "Siri Pal v. The State of Haryana and Others". The entire evidence was led in the aforesaid case. The learned counsel representing the parties are also ad idem that this batch of appeals can conveniently be decided by a common judgment.
1.3 The relevant particulars, for the purpose of decision of the present case, are as under:-
S.NO. TITLE DETAILS
1. Date of Notification under 05.02.2010
Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
2. Date of Notification under 11.02.2011
Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
3. Purpose of Acquisition. For the construction of Integrated
Complex for Industrial Storage Space,
Railway Siding, Institutional public-
semi public use and other public
utilities.
4. Location, area and nature of The acquired land is located in village the acquired land Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram.
5. Number and Date of the Vide Award No. 25 dated 08.02.2013 Award of the Land the acquired land measuring 239 acres Acquisition Collector. and 13 marlas, located in Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram.
6. Amount assessed by the Land The LAC has offered to pay the Acquisition Collector. market value of the acquired land located in village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram., @ ₹55,00,000/- per acre.
7. Date of the judgment of the 25.10.2021 Reference Court.
8. Amount determined by the The RC has dismissed all the 48 Reference Court. reference petitions.
2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 3 And Other Connected Cases
2. Facts 2.1 Dissatisfied with the amount offered by the LAC, for involuntary acquisition of their land located in village Patli Hazipur, comprised in rectangle No. 40, 41, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151 and 153, on the application of the landowners the cases were referred to the RC under Section 18 of the 1894 Act for redetermination. The landowners have claimed that the market value of the acquired land on 05.10.2010 was not less than ₹5,00,00,000/- as the land has the potential to be utilized for residential, industrial and commercial purposes. It has been asserted that the various five star hotels, commercial sites, residential sectors of the Industrial Model Township, Manesar and many branches of the nationalized banks are located in the said area. On the other hand, the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure and Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the HSIIDC") has stated that the LAC has already awarded the reasonable, appropriate and adequate market value of the acquired land, therefore, there is no scope for further enhancement.
2.2 It would be noted here that in Regular First Appeal No. 752 of 2022, the landowners have filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for permitting them to lead additional evidence. The landowners wish to produce the Collector's rate of the year 2010-11 with respect to the villages located in Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram w.e.f. 11.10.2010. They also wish to produce the Collector's rates list for the year 2011-12 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 as well as for the year 2012-13 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, a certified 3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 4 And Other Connected Cases copy of the judgment passed by the RC on 15.03.2022 while deciding the cases of village Dhana with respect to the same notifications, a certified copy of the award No. 26 dated 08.02.2013 with respect to the village Bawra Bakipur and award No. 27 dated 08.02.2013 with respect to the acquisition of the land in village Dhana and award No. 25 dated 08.02.2013 with respect to the village Patli Hazipur. All these documents are the official documents prepared by the Government of Haryana as well as the judgment of the Reference Court. Hence, the application for permission to lead additional evidence is allowed. The same are taken on record as Ex.HC1, Ex.HC2, Ex.HC3, Ex.HC4, Ex.HC5, Ex.HC6 and Ex.HC7, respectively. 2.3 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the RC for adjudication:-
"1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? OPP
2) Whether the petitions are time barred ? OPR
3) Relief."
3. Evidence Produced by the Respective Parties 3.1 In the oral evidence, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:-
Sr. No. Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness
1. PW.1 Sh.Kuldeep Assistant Draftsman, Office of DTP, Gurugram.
2. PW.2 Sh. Babu Lal Petitioner .
3. PW.3 Sh.Krishan Kumar Halqa Patwari, Village Patli Hazipur, District Gurugram.
4. PW.4 Sh.Kanshi Ram Dahiya Draftsman, District Court, Gurugram.
4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 5 And Other Connected Cases
5. PW.5 Sh.DevenderSingh Registration Clerk, Tehsil Farukh Nagar.
6. PW.6 Sh. Harish Sharma Petitioner.
7. PW.7 Sh. Amit Thakran Petitioner.
3.2 In the documentary evidence, the landowners have produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation whereof is incorporated in para 5.3 of the judgment:-
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document
1. Ex.P1 Gurugram Manesar Urban Complex Final Development Plan 2021 AD.
2. Ex.P2 Gurugram Manesar Urban Complex Final development plan 2025 AD
3. Ex.PX Original RTI reply dated 9.3.2021 alongwith RTI application
4. Ex.PY Original RTI reply dated 7.4.2021 alongwith RTI application
5. Ex.PA Certified true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company on 10.2.2017 of M/s. Umang Leasing and Credit Company Limited.
6. Ex.PAA Copy of writ petition no. 4952 of 2012 titled as Ms. Umang Leasing and Credit Company Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.1.2017 by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court 3.3 On the other hand, in the oral evidence, the HSIIDC has examined Sh.Dalbir Singh Bhatti, Senior Manager (IA), HSIIDC, IMT Manesar, Gurugam as RW.1.
3.4 In the documentary evidence, the HSIIDC has produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation whereof is in para 5.3 of the judgment:-
Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document
1. Ex.R1 Copy of LAC award no.25 dated 8.2.2013 of Village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, Distt. District Gurugram.
2. Ex.R2 Copy of Policy for Rehabilitation and 5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 6 And Other Connected Cases Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document resettlement of land owners
3. Ex.R3 Proceedings of rate fixation committee
4. Mark A Collector rate of Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, Gurugram of the year 2009-2010
4. Analysis of the Reasons Recorded by the RC 4.1 After discussing the various sale deeds produced by the landowners, the RC found that the sale deeds bearing Nos. 549 (Ex.P1), 2147 (Ex.P2:Ex.P6), 3475 (Ex.P3), 171 (Ex.P5:Ex.P7), 1542 (Ex.PW.5/A), 2737 (Ex.P9) and 1911 (Ex.P11) are with respect to the constructed buildings/structures like the tube-well, trees etc. and hence, in the absence of the evidence to separately identify the value of the structures/building/trees, it would not be safe to rely upon the aforesaid sale deeds to assess the market value of the acquired land. The sale deed No.1911 (Ex.PW.5/B) pertaining to a plot measuring 200 square yards is also with respect to a house of four rooms. Similarly, the sale deed No. 1697 (Ex.P12) is with respect to a tiny size of plot measuring 250 square yards. Similarly, the sale deed No. 3325 (Ex.P8) pertains to a plot measuring 480 square yards located in village Judola. These sale deeds were also excluded as the parcels of plots sold through the aforesaid sale deeds were not found comparable with the acquired land. The RC held that the sale deed No. 735 dated 28.05.2007 (Ex.P8) with respect to the land measuring 15 kanals and 3 marlas located in village Judola also cannot be relied upon as the land was purchased by bigger corporate entity like M/s Adani Limited. Similarly, the sale deed No. 257 dated 20.04.2007 (Ex.P9) was also not relied upon by the RC. The sale deeds bearing No. 885 (Ex.P13), 908 (Ex.P14), 2852 (Ex.P15) and 2900 (Ex.P16) were with respect to the period post 05.02.2010 6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 7 And Other Connected Cases i.e. the date of the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, hence, they cannot be relied. Thereafter, the RC has discussed the sale deeds bearing No. 2282 (Ex.R4), 3193 (Ex.R5), 194 (Ex.R6), 2312 (Ex.R7), 3579 (Ex.R8), 1139 (Ex.R9) 2121 (Ex.R10), 2586 (Ex.R11), 2574 (Ex.R12), 3236 (Ex.R13), 3569 (Ex.R14), 1032 (Ex.R15), 1720 (Ex.R16), 1787 (Ex.R17), 2107 (Ex.R18), 3530 (Ex.R19), 2708 (Ex.R20), 2787 (Ex.R21), 2546 (Ex.R22), 2485 (Ex.R23) and 2599 )(Ex.R24) produced by the HSIIDC to conclude that there is no cogent evidence to prove that the market value of the acquired land was more than ₹55,00,000/- per acre.
5. Discussion and Analysis of the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties.
5.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the impugned judgments as well as the record of the Reference Court, which was requisitioned. 5.2 The learned counsel representing the parties have also filed short notes of their respective arguments.
5.3 At this stage, it would be appropriate to compile the tabulated information of the various sale deeds produced by the respective parties:-
Sr. Exhibit Sale Dated Area Amount Name of Rate Per No. No. Deed (In ₹) Village acre No. (In ₹)
1. P1 549 08.06.2009 94K-14M 9,65,00,000 Patli Hazipur 81,52,059
2. P2/P6 2147 13.10.2008 17K-12M 4,01,40,000 Bawra 1,82,45,455 Bakipur
3. P4 2755 17.12.2008 11K-18M 2,82,62,500 Bawra 1,90,00,000 Bakipur
4. P4/P3 3475 16.03.2009 11K-18M 2,35,00,000 Bawra 1,57,98,319 Bakipur
5. P5/P7 171 30.04.2009 18K-16M 4,70,00,000 Bawra 2,00,00,000 Bakipur
6. P5 1710 29.08.2008 17K-16M 3,85,55,957 Bawra 1,73,28,520 Bakipur
7. PW.5/A 1542 15.09.2009 9K-13M 3,79,96,875 Jadola 3,15,00,000 7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 8 And Other Connected Cases Sr. Exhibit Sale Dated Area Amount Name of Rate Per No. No. Deed (In ₹) Village acre No. (In ₹)
8. PW.5/B 1911 09.11.2009 6.5M 5,00,000 Patli Hazipur 1,23,07,692
9. P6 1709 29.08.2008 23K-15M 5,14,44,043 Bawra 1,73,28,520 Bakipur
10. P7/P9 2737 28.01.2010 9K-12M 5,00,00,000 Jadola 4,16,66,667
11. P8 3325 04.12.2012 16M 1,05,16,000 Jadola 10,51,60,000
12. P8 735 28.05.2007 15K-3M 3,21,93,750 Jadola 1,70,00,000
13. P9 257 20.04.2007 18K-9M 3,45,93,750 Jadola 1,50,00,000
14. P10/ 908 25.06.2010 16K 1,90,00,000 Patli Hazipur 95,00,000 P14
15. P11 345 25.05.2009 24K-1M 2,70,00,000 Patli Hazipur 89,81,289
16. P12 1697 09.10.2009 8.5M 5,05,000 Patli Hazipur 95,05,882
17. P13 885 23.06.2010 12K- 1,42,50,000 Patli Hazipur 95,00,000
18. P15 2852 04.01.2011 8K-1M 98,00,000 Patli Hazipur 97,39,130
19. P16 2900 07.01.2011 31K-4M 3,90,00,000 Patli Hazipur 1,00,00,000
20. R4 2282 18.11.2010 16K 92,00,000 Patli Hazipur 46,00,000
21. R5 3193 05.10.2011 2K 12,50,000 Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
22. R6 194 05.05.2009 7K-18M 39,50,000 Patli Hazipur 40,00,000
23. R7 2312 05.08.2011 4K 25,00,000 Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
24. R8 3579 31.03.2009 3K-13M 15,97,000 Patli Hazipur 35,00,274
25. R9 1139 30.07.2009 12K-14M 61,12,000 Patli Hazipur 38,50,079
26. R10 2121 29.10.2010 4K 23,00,000 Patli Hazipur 46,00,000
27. R11 2586 11.01.2010 15K-12M 84,00,000 Patli Hazipur 43,07,692
28. R12 2574 11.01.2010 1K 4,82,000 Patli Hazipur 38,56,000
29. R13 3236 04.02.2011 2K 11,25,000 Patli Hazipur 45,00,000
30. R14 3569 09.03.2011 15K-12M 87,75,000 Patli Hazipur 45,00,000
31. R15 1032 12.07.2010 6K-17M 40,00,000 Patli Hazipur 46,71,533
32. R16 1720 14.10.2009 1K-2M 5,77,500 Patli Hazipur 42,00,000
33. R17 1787 27.10.2009 3K-3M 15,16,000 Patli Hazipur 38,50,159
34. R18 2107 25.11.2009 6K-19M 33,68,750 Patli Hazipur 38.77.698
35. R19 3530 03.11.2011 2K 12,50,000 Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
36. R20 2708 25.01.2010 15K-12M 75,07,500 Patli Hazipur 38,50,000
37. R21 2787 02.09.2011 3K-10M 21,87,500 Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
38. R22 2546 07.01.2010 4K-12M 22,14,000 Patli Hazipur 38,50,435
39. R23 2485 08.12.2010 16K-6M 90,84,000 Patli Hazipur 44,58,405
40. R24 2599 13.01.2010 7K-15M 37,30,000 Patli Hazipur 38,50,323 5.4 From the careful study of the copies of the sale deeds produced by the parties, efforts have been made to identify the location of the acquired land while referring to the rectangle number and khasra numbers of the land located in the village Patli Hazipur.
8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 9 And Other Connected Cases 5.5 A careful study of the requisitioned record, it is evident that the landowners have produced the various layout plans. The layout plan (Ex.P1) is a final development plan for the controlled area of the Gurugram-Manesar Urban Complex 2021 AD whereas the layout plan (Ex.P3) is prepared by the Haryana Government notifying the final development plan for the controlled area of Gurugram-Manesar Urban Complex 2031 AD. Apart from the aforesaid, the landowners have also produced a layout plan of the land located in the villages, namely Dhana, Bawra Bakipur, Patli and Jhorola. On a careful perusal thereof, it is evident that the acquired land in village Patli Hazipur is located towards the Southern side of the railway track which goes from Rewari to Delhi. In fact, the acquired land of village Patli Hazipur is located in South-West corner of the area of village Patli Hazipur. From the careful study of the sale deeds produced by the landowners, it is evident that the landowners have produced the sale deeds bearing No. 549 (Ex.P1), 1911 (Ex.P5/B), 908 (Ex.P10), 345 (Ex.P11), 1697 (Ex.P12), 885 (Ex.P13), 2852 (Ex.P15) and 2900 (Ex.P16) with respect to the land located in village Patli Hazipur. The sale deeds (Ex.P13, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16) are with respect to the period post 05.02.2010, i.e. the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The sale deed (Ex.P1) pertains to the land comprised to rectangle No. 91 and 98 location whereof is not reflected in the layout plan (Ex.P10). There is no evidence to prove that the aforesaid parcel of land represented by sale deed bearing No. 549 (Ex.P1) is comparable with the acquired land. The land comprised in rectangle No. 91 and 98 is likely to be located at a sufficient distance from the acquired land. The sale deed (Ex.P5/B) is with respect to a tiny sized plot. Similar is the position of the 9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 10 And Other Connected Cases sale deed (Ex.P12). The sale deed (Ex.P11) is with respect to the land comprised in rectangle No. 89 and 91. Whereas the sale deed (Ex.P10) pertains to rectangle No. 97. On perusal of the award, it is evident that the land has been acquired out of the rectangle No. 40, 41, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151 and 153. No effort has been made by the landowners to prove that the aforesaid parcels of land (Ex.P1, Ex.P10, Ex.P11) are with respect to the contemporaneous period and are comparable parcels of land with the acquired land. 5.6 The learned counsel representing the landowners have relied upon the sale deeds bearing No. 2147, 3475 and 171 to contend that these sale deeds are of the comparable parcels of land. From the careful perusal of the sale deed (Ex.P10), it is evident that the aforementioned sale deeds are with respect to the village Bawra Bakipur and the parcel of the land sold is located either on the passage or on the Pataudi-Gurugram Road. This piece of land is also at a distance of at least 10 acres away from the acquired land.
In the absence of the evidence to prove that the aforesaid sale deeds represent the comparable parcels of land, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the same. The learned counsels representing the landowners have also relied upon the sale deed bearing No. 735, 2737 and 257. These three sale deeds pertain to the various parcels of land located in village Jadola. These parcels of land are located near the railway line, however, at a significant distance from the acquired land. In the absence of evidence of comparable parcels of land, it would not be safe to rely upon the aforesaid sale deeds. 5.7 On the other hand, the HSIIDC has produced the various sale deeds of the land located in village Patli Hazipur which show that the price 10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 11 And Other Connected Cases of the land at the relevant time was not beyond ₹50,00,000/- per acre. In fact, sale deed bearing No. 1787 (Ex.R17) is with respect to the land comprised in rectangle No. 118 and khasra No. 21 and 22 and rectangle No. 119 and khasra No. 1/12, 2, 3 and 9/1. A careful perusal of the layout plan (Ex.P10) shows that the land comprised in rectangle No.118 abuts the acquired land comprised in rectangle No. 41. The rectangle No.118 is located towards the Eastern side of the rectangle No. 41. Thus, it is obvious that the sale deed (Ex.R17) is with respect to the parcel of land located nearby to the acquired land. Similarly, the sale deed bearing No. 3579 (Ex.R8) pertains to the land comprised in rectangle No. 133. Whereas the acquired land is out of the rectangle No. 136, 137 and 138. Hence, the parcel of land sold through the sale deed (Ex.R8) was also located nearby the acquired land. In view of the aforesaid sale deeds (Ex.R8 and Ex.R17), it would not be safe to rely upon the sale instances produced by the landowners which are either of the land located at a distance or in the different villages. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the Court should rely upon the sale deed bearing No. 1542, 1911, 345 and 1697. The sale deeds bearing No. 1911 and 1697 are with respect to the tiny sized plots. Whereas there is no evidence that the sale deeds bearing No. 1542 and 345 are with respect to comparable parcels of land with the acquired land. Similarly, the learned senior counsel representing the landowners has also relied upon the sale deeds bearing No. 171, 3475, 2755 and 1710. All these sale instances have already been discussed by the Court. The learned senior counsel further submits that the Collector's rate in village Judola was less than the land located in the villages, namely Bawra Bakipur and Patli 11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 12 And Other Connected Cases Hazipur. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid argument cannot be made a basis to assess the market value of the acquired land. 5.8 The learned counsel representing the landowners also relies upon the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Ex.PX) to the effect that 140 acres of plain agricultural land has been sold to M/s Instacart Services Private Limited @ ₹3,22,00,000/- per acre and while the HSIIDC has spent only ₹2,46,00,000/- on its development. At this stage, it becomes incumbent to carefully examine the information received under the 2005 Act. It is evident that the HSIIDC published an e-auction brochure for the warehousing sites in village Patli Hazipur. The e-auction by way of bidding was to take place on 26.03.2021. In the aforesaid auction, a single bid has been received with respect to the land measuring 140 acres from the company M/s Instakart Services Private Limited @ ₹3,22,00,000/- per acre. The argument of the learned counsel appears to be attractive in the first blush, however, is found without substance on a deeper scrutiny. Section 24 of the 1894 Act specifically debars the Court from taking into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired which is likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. Section 24 of the 1894 Act is extracted as under:-
"24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. - But the Court shall not take into consideration - first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a 12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 13 And Other Connected Cases private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1); or eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy."
5.9 Moreover, only a single bid has been received. Furthermore, the aforesaid bid was made in the year 2021 whereas the Court is required to assess the market value of the acquired land as on 05.02.2010. 5.10 It will be noted here that although the HSIIDC had already issued notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act to acquire the land for the construction of Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway in the year 2005, however, the construction of the aforesaid road started much after the year 2010. It is important to note that the Delhi-Western Peripheral Road, 13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 14 And Other Connected Cases namely the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway was not immediately developed after the land was acquired. In fact, the Manesar-Palwal section was inaugurated in the month of April, 2016, whereas, the Kundli-Manesar section, which would be relevant in the present case, was inaugurated in the month of November, 2018. Moreover, a major portion of the Expressway is elevated, therefore, unless there is a link road, the prices of the land abutting the Expressway did not exponentially increase. The prices of the land increase on account of the better connectivity in the area. This Court had an opportunity to decide the cases of village Patli Hazipur with respect to the acquisition of the land for the construction of Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway in the village Patli Hazipur, the market value of the land was assessed in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Om Dutt and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 421 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) @ ₹14,50,000/- approximately on the basis of the policy of the State whereas within a period of five years, the Collector itself has granted an increase of ₹40,00,000/- per acre on the amount of ₹14,50,000/- per acre approximately. Thus, there is no error in the offer made by the LAC.
5.11 The landowners are required to prove by leading the cogent evidence that the LAC has failed to assess the proper market value of the acquired land. In the present case, the landowners have miserably failed to lead material evidence for the determination of market value. In the additional evidence, the landowners have relied upon the Collector's rates which are for the purpose of the collection of stamp duty on the sale deeds. A perusal of Ex.HC1 shows that it is applicable from 11.10.2010. Whereas, 14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 ::: Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 15 And Other Connected Cases Ex.HC2 is applicable from 01.04.2011. Similarly, Ex.HC3 is applicable from 01.04.2012. The judgment (Ex.HC4) dated 15.03.2022 has been set aside by a judgment of even date in Chandan Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 752 of 2022). Ex.HC5 is an award passed by the LAC with respect to the village Bawra Bakipur. The LAC has offered to pay @ ₹75,00,000/- per acre in the said award. In the absence of evidence to prove that the acquired land of village Bawra Bakipur was comparable with the acquired land of village Patli Hazipur, the awards (Ex.HC5 and Ex.HC6) cannot be relied upon particularly when the sale deed (Ex.R8 and Ex.R17) produced by the HSIIDC prove that the market value of the acquired land was not beyond ₹55,00,000/- per acre as awarded by the LAC.
6. Decision 6.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court is left with no choice but to dismiss all the appeals filed by the landowners. Resultantly, all the appeals filed by the landowners are dismissed. 6.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals, shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 09, 2023 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name
1. RFA-369-2022 DAYA RAM AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
2. RFA-672-2022 M/S UMANG LEASING AND CREDIT COMPANY LTD
V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
3. XOBJR-74-2022 M/S UMANG LEASING AND CREDIT COMPANY LTD
15 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 :::
Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 16
And Other Connected Cases
Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name
V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
4. RFA-673-2022 AMIT THAKRAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
5. XOBJR-75-2022 AMIT THAKRAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
6. RFA-485-2022 LALLU RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
7. RFA-486-2022 DHAN RAJ V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
8. RFA-487-2022 JAGDISH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
9. RFA-688-2022 GANGADHAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
10. RFA-689-2022 BABU LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
11. RFA-690-2022 INDRAJ AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
12. RFA-694-2022 TARA CHAND DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND
ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
13. RFA-171-2022 VIJAY PAL ALIAS VIJAY PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER
V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
14. RFA-156-2022 FATEH SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
15. RFA-158-2022 POHAP SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
16. RFA-154-2022 SHRI BHAGWAN (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS
AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
17. RFA-140-2022 SARJEET SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
18. RFA-157-2022 MAHENDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
19. RFA-139-2022 SIS RAM ALIAS SEES RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
20. RFA-2434-2021 RAJ KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
21. RFA-647-2022 JAGDISH CHAND AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
22. RFA-652-2022 RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
23. RFA-653-2022 KARAMBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
24. RFA-687-2022 BABU LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
25. RFA-573-2022 RAM NIWAS AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
26. RFA-722-2022 OM PARKASH AND ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
27. RFA-749-2022 VED PRAKASH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
28. RFA-752-2022 CHANDAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS
AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
29. RFA-753-2022 RAM CHANDER AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ORS
30. RFA-754-2022 RAMPHAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
16 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 :::
Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M) 17
And Other Connected Cases
Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name
31. RFA-755-2022 GORDHAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
32. RFA-761-2022 RAM MEHAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ORS
33. RFA-786-2022 ARJAN @ ARJUN SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ORS
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
January 09, 2023
"DK"
17 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 16-01-2023 20:29:29 :::