Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukhtiar Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 October, 2010
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.F.A. No. 2392 of 1997 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.10.2010
Mukhtiar Singh and others .... Appellants
vs
State of Haryana and another .... Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:- Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate,
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Adish Gupta, Advocate,
Mr. B. S. Tewatia, Advocate,
Mr. B. R. Rana, Advocate,
Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate,
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate,
Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate,
Mr. Sunil K. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Manav Bajan, Advocate for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate,
Mr. G. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate,
for the landowners.
Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General with
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
RAJESH BINDAL, J
1. This judgment will dispose of a bunch of appeals and cross-
objections pertaining to three different acquisitions though located in same area.
First in the series was the notification dated 7.4.1986 issued under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"). The purpose was for
development of land as Green Belt on the west of Delhi-Mathura Road, Opposite
City Centre, Sector 12, Faridabad. Second was the notification dated 5.6.1992
issued under Section 4 of the Act, for development and utilisation of the land for
semi public use including institutional use for educational, medical, defence and
administrative purposes in Sector 20-B, Faridabad and the third was the
notification dated 3.7.1995 vide which land was acquired for development thereof
as commercial, institutional, recreational and residential purposes in conformity
with development plan for Sectors 20-A and 20-B, Faridabad.
RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (2)
2. The following are the appeals and cross-objections pertaining to
different acquisitions:-
Appeals and cross-objections pertaining to notification dated 7.4.1986:
RFA Nos. 501 to 506, 549 to 551, 590, 707, 2132, 4701 of 1998.
Cross-objection No. 66/CI of 2003.
Appeals pertaining to notification dated 5.6.1992:
RFA Nos. 2392 to 2395, 2401, 2430 of 1997,
RFA No. 931 of 1998,
RFA No. 166 and 1518 of 1999.
RFA No. 182 of 2001,
RFA No. 3990 of 2002,
RFA No. 988 of 2003.
Appeals and cross-objections pertaining to notification dated 3.7.1995:
RFA Nos. 235 to 262, 283, 285 to 303, 332, 693, 694, 839, 956, 964
to 967, 1065, 1071 to 1082, 1300, 1301, 1506, 1651, 1658 to 1661,
1672, 1687, 1688, 1690, 1999, 2030, 2031, 2113, 2211, 2212, 2467,
2671, 2674, 2764, 2785, 3094, 3095, 3100, 3141, 3149, 3167, 3170,
3259, 3295, 3507, 3841 to 3843, 3868 to 3871, 3951, 3960, 4240 to
4243, 4296, 4959 to 4961, 4978, 5086, 5089, 5090, 5232, 5233,
5474, 5475 of 2001
RFA Nos. 124, 155, 156, 1419, 1473, 2539, 3591 and 4001 of 2002,
RFA Nos. 53, 769, 861, 887, 1883, 1884 and 2320 of 2004,
RFA Nos. 519, 591, 954, 1189, 1358 of 2005,
RFA Nos. 755 to 761, 2707, 2708, 2710, 2892, 2893, 2977, 2981,
2984, 3227, 3280, 3758, 3890, 3891, 4193, 4307, 4351, 4353, and
4354 of 2006,
RFA No. 3710 of 2007 and
Cross-objection Nos. 96/CI to 101/CI, 107/CI, 108/CI of 2006,
Cross-objection No. 80/CI of 2007,
Cross-objection Nos. 20,36,37,38,39/CI of 2008.
Facts regarding notification dated 7.4.1986
3. Vide notification dated 7.4.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired land measuring 6.97 acres situated in Village Ajronda Hadbast No. 118, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof as Green Belt on the west of Delhi-Mathura Road, Opposite City Centre, Sector 12, Faridabad. The Collector vide his award dated 30.3.1989 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,38,800/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the learned court. The learned court RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (3) below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 435/- per square yard in all the cases except in RFA No. 4701 of 1998 wherein the amount of compensation was determined @ ` 110/- per square yard.
Facts regarding notification dated 5.6.1992
4. Vide notification dated 5.6.1992 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired land measuring 7.81 acres situated in Village Ajronda Hadbast No. 118, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for development and utilisation thereof for semi public use including institutional use for educational, medical, defence and administrative purposes in Sector 20-B, Faridabad. The Collector vide his award dated 2.6.1995 determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 4,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the learned court. The learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 392.50 per square yard.
Facts regarding notification dated 3.7.1995
5. Vide notification dated 3.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired land measuring 98.66 acre Hadbast No. 118, 103.34 acres Hadbast No. 188, 183.34 acres Hadbast No. 121 situated in Village Ajronda, 6.88 acres in Village Taloribanger, 29.58 acres in Village Daultabad, Tehsil and District Faridabad, for commercial, institutional, recreational and residential purposes in conformity with development plan for Sectors 20-A and 20-B, Faridabad. The Collector vide his award dated 29.6.1998 determined the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ ` 5,85,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the learned court. The learned court below determined the market value of the acquired land of all the villages @ ` 400/- per square yard. However, in some cases, the value was assessed at ` 480/- per square yard.
6. To some up the value pertaining to land as assessed by the Collector for three different acquisitions and the value as assessed by the learned Reference Courts are extracted below in a table:-
Date of acquisition The compensation The compensation assessed by under Section 4 of the assessed by the the Reference Court per Act Collector per acre square yard 07/04/86 ` 3,38,800/- ` 435/- in all the references, except in LAC No. 354/ 31.3.97 wherein ` 110/-.
05/06/92 ` 4,50,000/- ` 392.50
03/07/95 ` 5,85,000/- ` 400/- / ` 480/-
RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (4)
7. Before I proceed to deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties on merits of the case, I would like to record that the learned court below has committed an irregularity in the manner of determination of fair value of the acquired land. Instead of assessing the value of the land acquired in the same area vide notification dated 7.4.1986, firstly the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 5.6.1992 was determined and on the basis of that value of the land acquired vide notification dated 7.4.1986 was considered and thereafter the cases pertaining to land acquired vide notification dated 3.7.1995 were decided. Value of the land which was acquired earlier should always be determined prior in time especially when the land pertaining to subsequent acquisitions is also located in the same area. The rates which were determined also show a total anomalous position. The land acquired vide three notifications is forming part of Sectors 20-A and 20-B Faridabad which is sandwiched between National Highway No. 2 (Delhi-Mathura Road) on one side and the railway line on the other side.
Arguments regarding acquisition of land vide notifications dated 7.4.1986 and 5.6.1992
8. Learned counsels for the landowners submitted that as far as determination of the compensation for the acquired land in one of the land reference which is subject matter of appeal in RFA No. 4701 of 1998, where the amount of compensation was determined @ ` 110/- per square yard, is concerned, the same should not be considered as such as in the subsequent cases, the learned reference court itself determined the market value of the acquired land @ ` 435/-
per square yard. Even that was not adequate. The submission is that in the aforesaid cases the reason for determination of lesser value was that proper evidence was not led. In the subsequent cases on the basis of material placed on record by the landowners, the value of the acquired land was determined @ ` 435/- per square yard. Even that is also under challenge by the landowners therein claiming that the same should be assessed at least @ ` 1,000/- per square yard. The submission is that for the purpose of determination of ` 435/- per square yard as the value of the land, the learned court below relied upon the award pertaining to land acquired vide notification dated 5.6.1992. It was submitted that whatever is the value determined for the acquisition of 1992, after reducing ` 5/- per square yard/ per year therefrom addition @ 40% should be awarded thereon considering the fact that this chunk of land is located on National Highway and the courts while assessing the compensation had been adopting belting methods and the value of land on the road is always assessed about 40% higher than the value of the land RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (5) which is not located on the road.
9. Continuing with their submissions, learned counsels for the landowners pertaining to land acquired vide notification dated 5.6.1992 submitted that for the purpose of determination of value therein the learned court below relied upon a judgment of this court in 1993 (3) PLR 466 State of Haryana vs Escort Dealers Development Association Limited, wherein the issue under consideration was valuation of land acquired for the purpose of a link road from National Highway No. 2 (Delhi-Mathura Road) to Sector 46, Faridabad. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was issued on 30.7.1987 and the assessment was @ ` 337.20 per square yard. For the purpose of determination of the value, the learned court below while relying upon the value, as determined for acquisition of land in Escort Dealers' case (supra), granted increase of ` 5/- per square yard/ per year for the time gap of five years from 30.7.1987 to 5.6.1992 and also adding ` 30/- therein on account of location determined the value at ` 392.50 per square yard.
10. The submission of the learned counsels for the landowners was that it was a very small acquisition of land measuring merely 14.78 acres which was located within 500 yards on National Highway No. 2 which was acquired vide both the notifications. As is evident from site plan, Ex. P-4, the entire Sector 20-B is located just opposite the already developed commercial Sector-12 of Faridabad across the National Highway No. 2. Whereas on the other side crossing the railway line was existing Faridabad Township. The place was hub of commercial activities and was at a prime location. It was situated in midst of the developed area. The commercial plots in Sector-12 Faridabad were being sold at a very high rates even prior to first acquisition in the year 1986, though the reliance on the judgment of this court in Escort Dealers' case (supra) is not disputed as such but the submission is that the land pertaining thereto was at a far off place in the area which was still in the process of development as compared to the land in question where the area was already developed. Otherwise also the acquisition in that case was for the purpose of construction of road leading to Sector-46 from National Highway No. 2 which was in vertical length from National Highway No. 2 whereas the acquired land in the present case is abutting the National Highway.
11. It was further submitted that award of merely ` 30/- per square yard on the value so determined while relying upon Escort Dealers' case (supra), would be totally inadequate as is even evident from the award of the Collector for the land, the valuation of which was subject matter in Escort Dealers' case (supra). The Collector had determined the value thereof @ ` 90,000/- per acre i.e. ` 18.60 RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (6) per square yard. Whereas for the land pertaining to village Ajronda acquired for Sector 20-B vide three different notifications, the value was determined by the Collector as under:-
Date of acquisition under The compensation assessed by
Section 4 of the Act the Collector
07/04/86 ` 70/- per square yard
05/06/92 ` 92.97 per square yard
03/07/95 ` 120.86 per square yard
12. The landowners should be awarded compensation in the same proportion relying upon the judgment in Escort Dealers' case (supra).
13. In response to the aforesaid contentions of the landowners, learned counsel for the State submitted that the reliance on the judgment of this court in Escort Dealers' case (supra), is totally misplaced. What is required to be considered is the value of land determined by this court for land acquired vide notification dated 10.11.1982 for development of Sector 21-C, Faridabad which is just close to Delhi and located on the main road. Vide judgment in RFA No. 57 of 1989 Ashok Pal and others vs Haryana State, decided on 20.10.2003, its value was determined @ ` 22/- per square yard. Considering the time gap of four years, the landowners could at the most be awarded increase @ 7 to 8 per cent per annum. The judgment of this court in Escort Dealers' case (supra), was not even relied upon by this court while considering the issue regarding determination of fair value of the land acquired for Sector 46- Part-II Faridabad vide notification dated 22.8.1988 wherein value was determined at ` 200/- per square yard in LPA No. 920 of 1994, decided on 27.7.2005 titled as Horam vs State of Haryana and another. Accordingly to place reliance on that judgment in this case is totally misconceived.
14. Similarly for the land acquired for development as Sector 46, Faridabad, in Village Mewla Maharajpur, vide notification dated 30.4.1986, the value was determined at ` 175/- per square yard in LPA No. 227 of 1996 - Smt. Brahma Devi and another vs The State of Haryana, decided on 27.7.2005. It was further submitted that the land which was acquired for the purpose of green belt was located on the National Highway and there was restriction of construction as the land could not be used as such for commercial purpose without obtaining necessary approvals. Even otherwise, the acquisition was not for any commercial purpose and for determining the market value the purpose for which the land was acquired is also required to be seen. The same being merely for green belt to be developed and maintained at the cost of the State.
RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (7)15. In response to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State, learned counsels for the landowners submitted that the reliance on the value of the land determined for acquisition of land for Sector 20-C, Faridabad, is totally irrelevant considering the fact that even the award of the Collector in the present case was much more than that.
Arguments regarding acquisition of land vide notification dated 3.7.1995.
16. Learned counsels for the landowners submitted that the determination of value in the present case was apparently erroneous. Though the notification under Section 4 was issued on 3.7.1995 but the value as has been determined by the learned court below is even less than the value determined for acquisition of land vide notification dated 7.4.1986 in the same area. This is despite the fact the entire area in the vicinity by that time had already been developed. In fact, the landowners are entitled enhancement @ 12% per annum on the value so determined for the acquisition of land vide notification dated 7.4.1986. It was further submitted that there was nothing wrong in placing reliance upon judgment of this court in Escort Dealers' case (supra) as the same was the most appropriate piece of evidence. Acquisition in that case was for the purpose of construction of a road connecting National Highway No. 2 (Delhi-Mathura Road to Sector 46, Faridabad) which is located beyond the railway line. It was not that the value of land of one only of the landowners, whose evidence was relied upon, was determined @ ` 337.20 per square yard, rather entire chunk of land acquired for the purpose of road in that case was valued at the same rate.
17. Referring to the contention raised by learned counsel for the State where the reliance was placed on the value of the land acquired for Sector 46 Part-I and Sector 46 Part-II is concerned, it was submitted that those were not the comparative chunks of land as the location thereof was beyond the railway line and the area at the time of acquisition therein was still being used for agricultural purposes, whereas the land acquired in the present case is situated in the heart of the city on the National Highway, which was hub of commercial activities. Reference was placed on sale-deed, Ex. P-7, whereby land pertaining to village Mewla Maharajpur located close to the acquired land was sold at an average price of ` 1,475/- per square yard for which agreement to sell was executed on 7.3.1996. As the transaction was for 11,000 square yards it cannot be said to be sham. There are judicial precedents available in support of the claim that even post acquisition sale transactions can also be relied upon. Reference was made to judgments reported as 1983 PLR 286 Shri Tara Singh (deceased) vs The State of Punjab, (1989) 4 SCC 250 Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased) through his heirs and RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (8) LRs and others vs State of Gujarat, and (2004-2) PLR 97 Subash Chander vs State of Haryana and others.
18. It was further submitted that the development of the area started way back in 1960. It was the nerve center from where the new industrial township started developing and extended on all sides. As is evident from the site plan, NIT Faridabad Township is located on one side of the acquired land beyond the railway line. Sectors 12 and 15-A had been developed prior thereto. Referring to Ex. P-6, it was submitted that one SCO was sold in Sector 12, on 20.2.1989 at an average price of ` 5,150.92 per square yard, the area being 194.14 square meter. Reference was also made to sale of booth in Sector 15-A, vide Ex. P2/A on 17.8.1989 @ ` 30,210.40 per square meter. The area being 22.575 square meter. On 18.4.1994, vide Ex. P1/A, Booth No. K-9, measuring 5.655 square meter in Sector 12 was sold @ ` 71,794.89 per square meter. This itself shows that much prior to the acquisition of land, the value therein was quite mind boggling but the landowners were given only peanuts.
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale-deeds produced on record by the State have been totally ignored. The same clearly justified the award of the Collector. Reference was made to sale-deed, Ex. R-1, dated 20.5.1993 pertaining to land of village Ajronda, whereby 1 kanal 15 marlas of land was sold for ` 1,02,000/- i.e. an average price of ` 4,66,285/- per acre. Even if increase of 12% per annum is awarded for the time gap in the notifications, the same would justify the award of the Collector. Though in the site plan, Ex. R-9, the acquired land has been shown, however, the location of the land pertaining to sale-deed, Ex. R-1, has not been pointed out. It was submitted that the sale-deed, Ex. R-1, be given preference in place of other sale transactions pertaining to land of other villages as it would be in the close proximity of the acquired land being of the same revenue estate. Sale-deed, Ex. R-3, was also relied upon which according to the learned counsel for the State justifies the award of the Collector. Reliance on site plan, Ex. P-10, produced by the landowners is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the land pertaining to this sale-deed is located quite close to Delhi which cannot be said to be comparable piece of land viz-a-viz the acquired land.
Discussion
20. As per site plan placed on record as Ex. P-10, in LAC No. 57 of 1999, Sectors 20-A and 20-B, Faridabad, for which the land has been acquired vide three notifications under consideration, is located on main National Highway No. 2 (Delhi-Mathura Road). Just opposite the same across the National Highway RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (9) is Sectors 11, 12 and 15-A. On the other side beyond the railway line is the NIT Faridabad Township. If we move from the acquired land towards Delhi crossing the NIT Faridabad Township on the National Highway are Sectors 20-C, 27-A, 27- B and onwards. On the other side of all these sectors beyond the railway line and adjoining to the NIT Faridabad Township are Sectors 21-B, 21-A, 21-C, 46, 45 and others. If we move towards Mathura, on National Highway No. 2 (Delhi- Mathura Road) beyond Sector 20-B, are Sectors 5 and 26 upto the point till the National Highway crosses the railway line and thereafter Sectors 25 and 55 are located. Beyond the railway line adjoining to the NIT Faridabad Township on this side are some residential colonies besides industrial establishments. A perusal of the site plan shows that it is close to the centre from where New Industrial Township, Faridabad started developing. Considering its location, the fact cannot be disputed that the land had great future potential for being used for commercial and industrial purposes. Abutting the National Highway, there were a lot of commercial and industrial establishments.
21. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, in my opinion, it is always appropriate, if there are more than one acquisition of land in the same area, to consider the earliest one the first and not to go in the reverse side, as has been done by the learned court below in the present set of cases. The learned court below in the present case had relied upon the judgment of this court in Escort Dealers' case (supra), wherein for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 30.7.1987 for the purpose of construction of road from National Highway No. 2 to Sector 46, Faridabad, this court had assessed the value @ ` 337.20 per square yard. The land pertaining to this is located from the City Centre at Faridabad towards Delhi side in an around the area, which was still being developed and the acquisition of land was being carried out, as even for development of Sector 46, Faridabad, the land was acquired on 30.4.1986. Considering the fact that the aforesaid land was at a less advantageous position and also the value therein was assessed for a strip of land, of which a very small portion was abutting National Highway No. 2, as it was meant for construction of road to connect National Highway No. 2 with Sector 46, Faridabad, which was located beyond the Railway Line, in my opinion, on account of locational advantage, 50% can safely be added thereon. It is for the reason that the acquired portion of land in the present case is a small strip which is abutting National Highway No. 2. The location thereof, as has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph, is just opposite to Sectors 11, 12 and 15-A, Faridabad, which had already been developed. Rather, in Sector-12, commercial plots had RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (10) already been sold at a much higher rate and further on the other side of the acquired land leaving a small strip in between beyond the Railway line was the populated area of NIT Faridabad. After adding 50% on ` 337.20 on account of locational advantage, as has been discussed above, the value would come out to ` 506.25 per square yard. It is even evident from the awards of the Collector in both the aforesaid cases that the value of the land in the area was much more as compared to the land dealt with in Escort Dealers' case (supra). The award of the Collector in that case was ` 18.60/- per square yard, whereas in the present case, it was ` 3,38,800/- per acre i.e. ` 70/- per square yard. Considering the fact that notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.4.1986 and the same in Escort Dealers' case (supra) was issued on 13.7.1987, there being a time gap of 15 months, in my opinion, a cut of 15% can very well be applied therefrom. After application thereof, the value shall come out to ` 431/- per square yard, which is quite close to the value already assessed by the learned court below @ ` 435/- per square yard.
22. Accordingly, as far as the appeals pertaining to acquisition vide notification dated 7.4.1986 is concerned, the value of the land is determined @ ` 435/- per square yard. The appeals in which the aforesaid amount has already been determined as compensation, are dismissed. However, in appeal(s), where the amount assessed is less than ` 435/- per square yard, the same are accepted while assessing the compensation therein @ ` 435/- per square yard. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
23. As far as valuation of land acquired vide notification dated 5.6.1992 is concerned, it is merely a strip of land which is located beyond the green belt abutting National Highway No. 2, which was already acquired vide notification dated 7.4.1986. Nothing has come on record as such that there was any road beyond the green belt, to which the aforesaid strip of land was connected or the land owners had any access from National Highway No. 2. However, still considering the location as such as some body could develop the same after getting necessary permission and leaving facilities for infrastructure, in my opinion, 30% increase for the time gap can very well be awarded on the compensation so assessed for the land acquired vide notification dated 7.4.1986. Adding the same, the value of the acquired land would come out to ` 565.60, which is rounded off to ` 566/- per square yard. The land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 566/- per square yard along with statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent indicated above.
RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (11)24. Now coming to the question of valuation of land acquired vide notification dated 3.7.1995, it is again the left over portion of land in the vicinity of land already acquired. This portion of land is abutting the National Highway No. 2. As this court had already assessed the compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.6.1992 and there is a gap of 3 years in the two acquisitions, considering development during this period, for this gap of 3 years, the land owners deserve to be awarded compensation by granting increase @ 12% per annum with cumulative effect. Reference in this regard may be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil and Natuaral Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, JT 2008 (9) SC 480. Adding the aforesaid amount, the value shall come out to ` 795.19, which is rounded off to ` 795/- per square yard. The land owners are held entitled to compensation @ ` 795/- per square yard along with all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The impugned awards of the learned court below is modified to the extent indicated above. To sum up, it is directed that for the land acquired vide notification dated 7.4.1986, the land owners are held entitled to compensation @ ` 435/- per square yard;
for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.6.1992, the landowners are held entitled to compensation @ ` 566/- per square yard; and for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 3.7.1995, the amount of compensation payable to the landowners shall be @ ` 795/- per square yard.
The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act.
25. To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well, which are as under:-
"With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it proper to issue following further directions:
(i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib RFA No. 2392 of 1997 (12) Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation.
(ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open saving bank account in case they already do not have such account.
(iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.
(iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners."
26. The appeals and the cross-objections stand disposed of in the manner indicated above.
06.10.2010 (Rajesh Bindal)
vs. Judge
(Refer to Reporter)