Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nafe Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 November, 2021
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
RFA-1625-2016 (O&M)
and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA-1625-2016 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.11.2021
Nafe Singh (deceased) through his L.RS and others
....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Present: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate Mr. B.S. Saroha, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. Narender Singh, Advocate for Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.1788 to 1790, 2375 of 2019 and RFA Nos.1268 to 1272 of 2019.
Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the applicants-appellants in RFA-2579-2016.
Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate for the respondent No.1 in CWP-10225, 10222, 13170, 12461 of 2021, 1 to 7 in CWP-10207, 12403 of 2021, 1 and 2 in CWP-12503, 12404, 12412 of 2021, 7, 11 to 15 and 17 in CWP-10214 of 2021, 1 to 6 in CWP-12508 of 2021, 1 to 4 in CWP-12472, 12465 of 2021, 11 to 15 and 17 in CWP- 10210-2021, 1 to 14 in CWP-10534-2021, 1 to 3 in CWP- 12455, 10110, 10198, 10208, 12500 of 2021, 4 in CWP- 10196-2021 and for the private respondents in CWP-12483, 12370 of 2021.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate, for the HSIIDC in Regular First Appeals, Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the HSIIDC in Civil Writ Petitions.
Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the HSIIDC in RFA No.4179 of 2018. For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 1 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:52 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 2 Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. This judgment shall dispose of a batch of Regular First Appeals as well as the connected writ petitions, details whereof have been given in the foot of the judgment. The writ petitions have been filed by the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'HSIIDC') assailing the correctness of the various identical orders passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as LAC) u/s 28-A of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'.). In these writ petitions the stand taken is that the LAC should have waited for final determination by the court before deciding the various applications filed u/s 28-A of 'the 1894 Act'. Learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that these appeals as well as the writ petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed under Section 54 of 'the 1894 Act') assailing the correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court on 21.11.2015 while deciding the various references filed U/s 18 of the 1894 Act. It may be noted here that another batch of five applications under Section 18 of the 1894 Act was decided by the Reference Court by a separate judgment dated 22.03.2018, assessing the identical market value similar to the assessment made by the Reference Court vide a judgment dated 21.11.2015. However, out of those five reference applications, 4 petitions u/s 18 of the 1894 Act were dismissed For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 2 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 3 as being time barred, whereas one such application filed by Dharamvir and others was allowed.
3. At the outset, it is important to note that with respect to the land located in village Kheri Sadh (the village in question in the present case), this Court has already decided a batch of appeals on 21.09.2021 with the main judgment in Managing Director, HSIIDC and another vs. Splendour Land Base Limited and another (RFA-
926-2017). In the aforesaid batch of appeals, the process of acquisition of the land was initiated on 09.06.2006 by issuing a notification u/s 4 of the 1894 Act. This Court assessed the market value of the acquired land abutting the National Highway-10 upto the depth of 1 acre at the rate of Rs.28,70,000/- per acre whereas the remaining land in the interior has been assessed at Rs.19,77,000/- per acre.
4. Thereafter, once again the State of Haryana, in order to utilize the land for developing an industrial modern township, issued a new notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 13.02.2008 expressing its intention to acquire a very large tract of the land. The LAC vide an award no. 13 dated 30.11.2009 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per acres. On the request of the landowners, the various applications were referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak (Reference Court) vide a judgment dated 11.08.2011 has assessed the market value of the acquired land abutting the National Highway no.10 Rohtak Delhi Road upto the depth For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 3 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 4 of 1 acre at rate of Rs.28,50,000/- per acre whereas the market value for the remaining land in the interior/away from the National Highway has been assessed at the rate of Rs.21,37,000/-.
5. The landowners have claimed that the acquired land has a great potential as it is located on National Highway no.10 and the presence of various hotels and banquet halls increases its potential value.
Dilyar Lake is adjacent to the acquired land. It has further been pointed out that various educational institutions like Shri Baba Mast Nath College of Engineering, an Eye Hospital, an Ayurvedic College, a College of Pharmacy, a College of Physiotherapy, Shree Baba Mast Nath Residential School, Indus Public School, DGV Public School and DGV Centenary Public School, Rohtak and other educational institutions are situated near the aforementioned acquired land. The residential colonies namely the Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Suncity project and Omex Project and Sector 27 are also located nearby the land of acquisition. It has further been alleged that Maharishi Dayanand University and Pandit B.D.Sharma PGIMS Rohtak are situated at a walking distance from the said land. Haryana Urban Development Authority has also acquired the land located in the village Kheri Sadh wherein the LAC has offered to acquire the land at the rate of Rs.33.11 lakh per acre. Similarly, the acquired land for industrial model township located in villages Bohar and Gadhi Bohar has been offered an amount of Rs.29.70 lakh acre by the LAC. The landowners claim that the market value of the acquired land is more than Rs.5 crores per acre.
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 4 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 5 On the other hand, respondents have countered the petition by filing a detailed written statement. It has been submitted that the LAC has assessed the market value on the basis of the sale deeds and therefore, the reference applications should be dismissed.
On appreciation of the pleadings, the Reference Court framed the following issues:-
"(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount as enhanced compensation as alleged, if so to what extent?OPP.
(3) Whether the petitions are not
maintainable? OPR
(4) Whether the petitioners have got
no locus standi to file the present petitions?OPR (5) Relief."
The landowners in order to prove their case examined Surinder Singh as PW1, Ishwar Singh as PW2, Preet Singh as PW3, Satyawan as PW4. The aforesaid persons are the landowners who stand deprived of their land. The landowners have also examined Vijay Kumar ( Kanungo) as PW5 and Harinder Kumar, (Accountant in the office of Tehsildar, Rohtak) as PW6. In the reference applications separately decided vide a judgment dated 22.03.2008 the landowners have examined Sanjay Malhotra as PW1, Smt. Ompati as PW2, Suresh Bhatia as PW3 and Sh. P.S.Dahiya, as PW4. On the other hand, HSIIDC For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 5 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 6 has examined Vishnu Kumar (Patwari) as RW1 in the first batch of the reference petitions whereas in the second batch of reference petitions, Vishnu Kumar (Patwari) has been re-examined apart from examining Anil Kumar (Patwari) as RW2.
Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the landowners have produced the following documentary evidence, which is extracted as under:-
"Ex.P1 Sale Deed No. 238 dated 12.5.2006 Ex.P2 Sale Deed No. 675 dated 15.6.2007 Ex.P3 Sale Deed No. 682 dated 26.6.2006 Ex.P4 Sale Deed No. 1870 dated 10.4.2006 Ex.P5 Sale Deed No. 2689 dated 19.2.2007 Ex.P6 Sale Deed No. 2223 dated 20.10.2009 Ex.P7 Sale Deed No. 120 dated 16.4.2007 Ex.P8 Sale Deed No. 441 dated 25.5.2007 Ex.P9 Sale Deed No. 682 dated 26.6.2006 Ex.P10 Copy of Award No.4 of 13.7.2009 Ex.P11 Copy of Award No.13 of 30.11.2009 Ex.P12 Copy of Award No.18 of 3.1.2013 Ex.P13 Aks Sizra Ex.P14 Sale Deed No.2870 dated 28.2.2014 Ex.P15 Sale Deed No.2856 dated 26.2.2014 Ex.P16 Haryana Govt. Notification No.18/37/11-3CI dated 27.4.2012 Ex.P17 Aks Sizra In the second batch of reference petitions, the landowners have produced the following documents:-
Ex.P1 Special Power of Attorney
Ex.P2 Sale Deed No.1757 dated 02.11.2012
Ex.P3 Certified copy of judgment dated 21.11.2015
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
6 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 7 passed in case "Smt. Jagwanti and others vs. State of Haryana and others"
Ex.P4 Sale Deed No. 682 dated 26.06.2006 Ex.P5 Sale Deed No. 1739 dated 30.10.2012 Ex.P6 & P7 Electricity Bills Ex.P8 Mutation No.2959 Ex.P9 Mutation No.2960 Ex.P10 Mutation No.2961 Ex.P11 Mutation No.2950 Ex.P12 Mutation No.2949 Ex.P13 Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 Ex.P14 Jamabandi for the year 2010-2011 Ex.P15 & P16 Aks Shizra Ex.P17 to P19 Photographs Ex.P20 Valuation Report of Banquet Hall Ex.P21 Valuation Report of Resort/Hotel Ex.P22 Sale Deed No. 1757 dated 02.11.2012 Ex.P23 Sale Deed No. 1280 dated 14.11.2008 On the other hand, in the first batch of reference petitions, the HSIIDC has produced the following documents Ex.R1 Authority Letter Ex.R2 Sale Deed No. 2746 dated 26.2.2007 Ex.R3 Sale Deed No. 1640 dated 27.10.2007 Ex.R4 Sale Deed No. 1735 dated 12.8.2009 Ex.R5 Supplementary Award No.11 dated 4.2.2011 Ex.R6 Supplementary Award No.11A dated 11.4.2011 Ex.R7 Haryana Govt. Notification No.5451-R-V-2007 /13258 dated 7.12.2007 Ex.R9 Statement No.19 Ex.R10 Copy of Award No. 13 dated 30.11.2009 Ex.R11 Agenda of meeting of HSIIDC Ex.R12 Award No.5 dated 30.4.2007 Whereas in the second batch of reference applications, the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
7 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 8 following documents were produced:-
Ex.R1 Authority Letter
Ex.R2 Sale Deed No. 225 dated 12.05.2006
Ex.R3 Sale Deed No. 2746 dated 26.02.2007
Ex.R5 Sale Deed No. 2742 dated 26.02.2007
Ex.R6 Supplementary Award No.11 of 04.02.2011
Ex.R7 Supplementary Award No.11A dated 11.4.2012
Ex.R8 Supplementary Award No.5 of 2013
Ex.R10 Village & Skill Development Scheme
Ex.R11 Preliminary Survey of structure at IMT
(wrongly again mentioned as Ex.R8)
Ex.R12 Detail of supplementary award of village Kheri
Sadh (wrongly again mentioned as Ex.R9) Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused both the judgments passed by the Reference Court as well as the separate record of the Reference Court with respect to both the batches of the reference petitions which had been requisitioned.
The learned counsel representing the appellants has contended that the Reference Court has erred in refusing to rely upon the sale exemplar (Ex.P5) dated 19.02.2007. He contends that while assessing the market value the landowners are entitled to rely upon the sale exemplar with the highest price. He further contends that learned court has erred in increasing the price merely at the rate of 9% per annum whereas the Reference Court should have hiked the price while giving increase @ 12% per annum. It is contended that the sale exemplar Ex.P5 is with respect to a large chunk land measuring 7 acre 1 For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 8 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 9 kanal and 15 marlas and therefore, the court has erred in assessing the market value by applying deduction of 25%. Sh. Narwal, learned counsel appearing for some of the landowners while drawing the attention of the Court to the award passed by the LAC (Ex.P12), with respect to acquisition of land initiated on 11.01.2010 vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.33 lakhs per acre. He contends that the aforesaid parcel of land is also located in village Kheri Sadh, therefore, the owners are entitled to the same amount.
Per contra, learned counsel representing the HSIIDC has contended that the Reference Court has erred in ignoring the sale exemplars produced by them. He contends that the Reference Court has erred in refusing to consider the aforesaid sale exemplar on the ground that the aforesaid sale instances depict market value lower than what was assessed by the LAC.
At this stage, it may be important to notice the sale exemplar produced by both the parties. The sale exemplars produced by the landowners have been compiled in tables 1 & 2 whereas the sale exemplars produced by the State have been compiled in tables 3 &4.
Table I (The sale deeds produced by the landowners in Ist batch of reference petitions) Sr Exhibit Vasika Date Land Total sale Rate per Revenue No No. Area considerati acre in Rs. Estate on
1. P1 238 12.5.2006 14 marla 4,06,500/- 46,45,714/- Village Kheri Sadh
2. P2 675 15.6.2007 10 marla 5,21,000/- 83,36,000/- -do-
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 9 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 10
3. P3 682 26.6.2006 2 Acre 50,00,000/- 25,00,000/- -do-
4. P4 1870 10.11.2006 6 kanal 2 19,06,250/- 25,00,000/- -do-
marla
5. P5 2689 19.2.2007 57 kanal 1,81,00,000/- 25,07,359/- -do-
15 marla
6. P6 2223 20.10.2009 7 kanal 63,00,000/- 65,03,225/- Village 15 marla Kharawar
7. P7 441 25.5.2007 32 kanal 5 1,93,49,760/- 47,99,940/- Village marla Kharawar
8. P8 120 16.4.2007 1kanal 7 8,06,400/- 47,78,667/- Village marla Kharawar
9. P9 682 26.6.2006 16 kanal 50,00,000/- 25,00,000/- Village Kheri Sadh
10. P14 2870 28.2.2014 1 Acre 1 1,82,52,594/- 1,62,24,528/- Village Kanal Kheri Sadh
11. P15 2856 26.2.2014 1 Acre 1 1,82,52,594/- 1,62,24,528/- Village kanal Kheri Sadh Table 2 (The sale deeds produced in 2nd batch of reference petitions decided by the Reference Court on 22.03.2008) Sr. Exhibit Vasika Date Land Area Total Sale Revenue No No. consideration Estate
1. P2 1757 02.11.2012 1 Acre 3 kanal 7 2,38,77,562.00 Kheri marla Sadh
2. P4 682 26.06.2006 2 Acre 50,00,000/- Kheri Sadh
3. P5 1739 30.10.2012 1 Acre 1,68,30,000/- Kheri Sadh
4. P22 1757 02.11.2012 1 Acre 3 Kanal 7 2,38,77,562.00 Kheri Marla Sadh
5. P23 1280 14.11.2008 2 kanal 4 marla 9,31,000/- Kheri Sadh Table 3 (Details of the sale deeds produced by the HSIIDC in Ist batch of reference petitions ) Sr. Ex.No. Dated Transaction Area Rate per acre Village No. Value (in Rs.)
1. R/2 26.02.2007 64,95,707/- 49 Kanal 10,44,535/- Kheri 15 Marla Sadh
2. R/3 22.10.2007 15,14,928/- 11 Kanal 11,01,765/- Kheri Sadh
3. R/4 12.08.2009 27,40,000/- 1 Acre 5 16,00,000/- Kheri Kanal 14 Sadh Marla Table 4 For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 10 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 11 (Details of the sale deeds produced by the HSIIDC in 2nd batch of reference petitions ) Sr. Exhibit Dated Transaction Area Rate per Village No. value acre (in Rs.)
1. R/2 12.05.2006 7,82,000/- 12 Kanal 10 5,00,480/- Kheri Marla Sadh
2. R/3 26.02.2007 64,95,707/- 49 Kanal 15 10,44,535/- Kheri marla Sadh
3. R/4 05.03.2007 48,00,000/- 68 kanal 6 5,62,226/- Kheri marla Sadh
4. R/5 26.02.2007 65,83,927/- 30 kanal 12 10,40,937/- Kheri marla Sadh
4. Statutory Provisions:-
4.1 Before this Bench proceeds to examine the respective contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the 1894 Act. It is provided in Section 15 of the 1894 Act, that while determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Section 23 and 24 of the 1894 Act. Hence, Section 23 to 25 of the 1894 Act are extracted as under:-
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration-- first the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under Section 4, sub- section (1) secondly the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly the damage (if any) sustained by the person For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 11 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 12 interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land.
[(1-A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum of such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.
Explanation.--In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of[thirty per centum] on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.
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 private person, would not render such person liable to a suit;
For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 12 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 13 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 land or opposed to public policy.] 25 Amount of compensation awarded by court not to be lower than the amount award by the Collector - The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11."
5. Discussion by the Court:-
5.1 It is evident from the reading of the first part of Section 23 of the 1894 Act that the market value of the land is to be determined according to the market value prevailing at the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of 1894 Act. No further guidelines for the assessment of the amount for a fair market value have been provided in the 1894 Act. Sub-section (1-A) of section 23 of the 1894 Act provides that while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired, the court, apart from the market value of the land, is required to award an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 13 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 14 annum at such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the 1894 Act, till the date of award passed by the Collector or till the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Under sub-section 2 of section 23 of the 1894 Act, the court, in addition to the market value of the land, is required to award a sum of 30% on such market value towards the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Section 24 of the 1894 Act enlists the various factors which are required to be neglected while determining the fair market value. Section 25 of the 1894 Act provides that the court shall not award the amount of compensation which is lower than the amount awarded by the LAC.
5.2 It is crystal clear from the careful reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions that while determining the market value of the acquired land, the court is required to examine the existing geographical location of the acquired land apart from its present and potential use. The Court is also required to examine as to whether the acquired land has nearness to any National Highway, State Highway or any developed area. The market value of the other land situated in the same locality/area or adjacent to or very near to the acquired land can also be taken into consideration by the court. While assessing the market value the Court is required to see as to what would be the price on which a willing seller would sell the land to a willing purchaser. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land, is to ascertain the market value of the acquired land with reference to the open market sale of a comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 14 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 15 willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of the preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value.
5.3 While adjudicating the market value of the acquired land, the Courts are expected to award "just" "fair" and "appropriate" amount on the basis of the material available on the record. The Court is not expected to distribute the public money with largesse. It is the duty of the Court to maintain a proper equilibrium between the parties. If the Courts lean in favour of the landowners, the government or the allottees are likely to be unnecessarily over-burdened and it will result in the distribution of the public money. Whereas if the courts are inclined towards the government, it can result in undermining of the just claims of the landowners with regard to compulsory acquisitions. Therefore, a proper balance has to be drawn, guided by the facts of case and to preserve the public interest and the public resources, as a whole.
Unequivocally, it has been held in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432 and Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 case that the landowners who stand deprived of the land are required to be paid the market value on the basis of the genuine sale exemplar depicting the highest price. In the present case, the crucial date for determination of the market value of the land is 13.02.2008. The Reference Court has correctly refused to rely upon sale exemplars Ex.P1 and P2 (in table 1) being of very small size as compared to a large tract of acquired land. The sale exemplar Ex.P4 (in table 1) is also of a relatively small size. The sale exemplars Ex.P6 and For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 15 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 16 Ex.P8 (in table 1) pertain to the parcel of the land located in a different village. The sale exemplars Ex.P14 and P15 in table 1 are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, therefore, should not be relied upon. Moreover, in table 2, the sale exemplars Ex.P2, P5, P22 and P23 are related to the period, post the date of notification, therefore, these should not be relied upon. In table 2 Ex.P4 is the same sale deed as has been noticed as Ex.P3 in table 1.
The sale deed exemplars Ex.P3 and P5 (in table 1) are of the contemporaneous period when compared with the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Through sale exemplar Ex.P5, 7 acre 1 kanal 15 marlas (57 kanals 15 marlas) land has been sold at the rate of Rs.25, 07,359/- per acre in favour of M/s Splendour Landbase Pvt. Ltd.
Through sale exemplar Ex.P3 in table 1, the land measuring 2 Acres (16 kanal) has been sold. The average per acre sale price of sale exemplar Ex.P3 (in table 1)also comes to Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. Furthermore, on a careful perusal of sale exemplar Ex.P3 (in table 1), it is evident that land comprised in Rect No.17, Killa no.4 and 7 has been sold. Whereas through sale exemplar Ex.P5 (in table 1) the land comprised in Rectangle No.10 has been sold. The rectangle is a unit of measurement of agriculture land in the northern India. It denotes a rectangular plot consisting of 25 acres of the land (5X5 acres.). In each village the land is identified by Rectangle, Killa/Khasra/Acre numbers. Normally, each acre consists of 4840 Sq. Yards of land. Whereas each kanal of land has 605 Sq. Yards of Land. Each Marla has little bit over 30 Sq. Yards of land. A perusal of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 16 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 17 on 30.11.2009 with regard to the present acquisition, it is clear that the State acquired the land from Rectangle No.4, 6, 20, 21, 22 etc. etc. Thus, the sale exemplars Ex.P3 and P5 relate to parcels of the land located nearby the acquired land. Undoubtedly, both the parties have failed to produce a proper layout plan while specifying the location of the parcels of the land sold through various sale exemplars. However, the court is required to decide the case on the basis of the material produced by the parties.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the sale exemplar produced by the HSIIDC cannot be relied upon, particularly, when the LAC itself has not relied upon the aforesaid sale exemplar. Now the focus shifts to sale exemplar Ex.P5. Through the aforesaid sale deed a substantial big chunk of land measuring 7 acres 1 kanal and 15 marlas (57 kanal 15 marlas) has been sold at the rate of Rs.25,07,359/- per acre.
As already noticed, the State of Haryana has already acquired land in the village for developing an industrial model township vide a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 09.06.2006. It has also come in evidence that the acquired land is not only located near the various educational institutions but is also not far away from the city. Moreover, if one carefully examines the information compiled in table 1, it is evident that the prices of the land increased significantly after the acquisition of the land by the first notification. There is a difference of one year between the sale exemplar Ex.P5 dated 19.02.2007 and notification dated 13.02.2008 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the present case. As industrialization has started taking place in the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 17 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 18 aforesaid area, therefore, it would be appropriate to increase the price by 12% per annum. The view of this Court get reinforced from Ex.P14 and P15 from table 1. Thus, the Court arrives at a figure of Rs.28,08,242/-
per acre.
There is yet another equally important aspect of the matter which needs adjudication. The Reference Court has applied a cut/deduction of 20% on the amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-to arrive at a figure of Rs.21,37,000/- per acre. The question is whether in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case, was it appropriate for the Reference Court to apply the cut/deduction at all. If the answer is yes, then the question regarding the appropriate percentage arises.
Let us first examine the statutory provisions. It is clear that the Legislature never intended that the Court must apply a cut/deduction in each and every case. Rather, it has been laid down that while acquiring the land, the landowners, who stand deprived of the property against their wishes, have been held entitled to a sum of 30% on such market value in lieu of the compulsory nature of acquisition. In a common legal parlance, this amount is called solatium. This part of the amount is in the nature of compensation to the owner for taking away his property without his consent. In the 1894 Act, it has mandated that the landowner should be paid apart from the market value of the land, 30% compulsory acquisition charges known as solatium to adequately compensate him for the land so acquired.
This Bench has carefully surveyed/examined the various judgments passed by the courts from time to time providing for For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 18 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 19 deduction or moderation of the market value. In Lal Chand's case (supra), the Court noticed that 'the deduction for development' consists of two components. The first component is with reference to the area required to be utilized for the development works. In other words, whenever the acquisition is for carrying out a developmental work like setting up a residential/commercial or industrial township or area, then a certain part of the acquired land is required to be utilized for carving out passages, roads, drains, parks and other facilities. The second component for such deduction is with regard to cost of development works to be carried out by the acquiring agency. In Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghbir Singh and others (2010) 11 SCC 581, the Supreme Court held that when the market value of a large extent of agriculture land has to be determined with reference to a price fetched by the sale of a small residential plot, it is necessary to make appropriate deduction towards development cost to arrive at an appropriate value for the large tracts of land. The court held that the deduction can range between 20% to 75% depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There are large number of judgments on the issue however, it would not be appropriate to notice all of them.
However, certain precedents are needed to be noticed.
In Anjani Molu Dessai vs State Of Goa & Anr (2010) 13 SCC 710, the Court held that ordinarily calculating/creating an average of the various sale exemplars is not permissible. The sale exemplar of highest market value should be preferred in absence of the evidence to the contrary. It was further held that in case of a several sale exemplars For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 19 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 20 of comparable pieces of land, the prices of the exemplars ranging in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was into assessing the market value of 3,65,375 square meter of land in village Balli, Goa. The LAC had deducted 45% from the market value depicted in the sale exemplar. In para 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no deduction is permissible in case sale is of a comparable land of reasonable size, which is extracted as under:
"16. The Land Acquisition Collector however committed a serious error in deducting 45% from the sale price disclosed by the sale deed dated 30-8-1989 towards the cost of development. It is well settled that deduction for development cost has to be made only where the value of a small residential/commercial/industrial plot of land in a developed layout is made the basis for arriving at the market value of a nearly large tract of undeveloped agricultural land. Where the land sold under the relied upon sale deed and the acquired lands are both of similar nature (as in this case where both are bharad lands) the question of making any deduction towards development cost to arrive at the cost of "undeveloped land" would not arise. Such a deduction would have been necessary if the sale deed relied upon related to a developed residential or commercial plot. Therefore, we are of the view that the Land Acquisition Collector was not justified in making 45% deduction from the price disclosed by the sale deed dated 30-8-1989."
In Atma Singh vs. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568, the Supreme Court was into assessing the market value of the land acquired for the Sugar factory. It was found out that the sale exemplars of small For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 20 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 21 parcels of land have been produced to assess the market value of large tract of acquired land. In those circumstances, the court permitted 10% deduction towards the development of the common facilities.
In Chakas_ vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 12 SCC 128, the Supreme Court allowed 10% cut to be applied for common facilities as a considerably big chunk of undeveloped parcel of the acquired land was allotted to the industrial conglomerate. Thus, the court applied cut of 10% for the development.
In General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 14 SCC 745, the Court deliberated on the percentage of increase which should be presumed by the court in absence of any other material. This judgment lays down the general guidelines in absence of any material available for determination of the increase to be awarded.
In Chandrashekhar(D) by LRs and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and another, (20120 1 SCC 390, the court found out that the sale deed exemplar is with respect to a small piece of land of a developed site and that too with respect to the period post the date of notification under Section 4. The court declared that in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, deduction upto 75% is permissible.
In A.P. Housing Board vs K. Manohar Reddy & Ors.
(2010) 12 SCC 707, the court held that when a large tract of land is acquired and the sale deed exemplars are produced of the smaller plots, the best course for the court to arrive at a reasonable and fair valuation, is to deduct a reasonable percentage from the valuation shown in the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 21 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 22 exemplar land and on the basis thereof to arrive at a fair valuation.
In Shaji Kuriakose And Anr vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
And Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 650, the court held that in case of a dissimilarity in respect of locality, shape, size or value of land between the land covered by the sale exemplar and the land acquired, the court can proportionately reduce the value. The court inter-alia noticed five factors to be applied while assessing the fair market value of the acquired land. The court further went on to hold that in a case where the sale exemplar fulfils all the factors, needed to be fulfilled, then there is no reason for not awarding the price similar to the market value as ascertained in the sale deed exemplar. The relevant discussion in in para 3 which is extracted as under:
"3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 22 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 23 fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land. In the present case, what we find is that the first two factors are satisfied. The sale transaction covered by the sale Ext. A-4 is genuine, inasmuch as the sale was executed in proximity to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, there is a difference in the similarity in the land acquired and the land covered by Ext. A-4. The land covered by Ext. A-4 is situated at Kottayam and Ernakulam, PWD Road, whereas the acquired land is situated at a distance of 3 furlongs from the main road. There is no access to the acquired land and there exists only an internal mud road which belonged to one of the claimants, whose land has also been acquired. For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 23 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 24 Further, the land covered by Ext. A-4 is a dry land and whereas the acquired land is a wetland. After acquisition, the acquired land has to be reclaimed and a lot of amount would be spent for filling the land. Moreover, the land covered by Ext. A-4 relates to a small piece of land which does not reflect the true market value of the acquired land. It is often seen that a sale for a smaller plot of land fetches more consideration than a larger or bigger piece of land. For all these reasons, the High Court was fully justified in lowering the rate of compensation than what was the market value of the land covered by Ext. A-4. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.
As is evidenced, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain tests before the landowners of the acquired land those who claim entitlement to the sale value of the comparable land. First test is with respect to the fact that the sale must be a genuine transaction. In the present case, no evidence has been led to prove that sale exemplar Ex.P3 and P5 (in table 1) are not genuine transactions. Under the second test, the sale exemplar must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. In the present case, the time gap between the sale exemplar Ex.P5 and the date of notification under Section 4 is one year. Thus, the sale exemplar Ex.P5 passes this test. The third test is that the land covered by the sale exemplar must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. Both the sale exemplars Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 pass this test. As regards, the fourth test, it is evident that the land sold through the sale exemplar Ex.P3 and P5 For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 24 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 25 being in the vicinity was similar to the land acquired. The State has not led any evidence to prove that the land covered by the sale exemplar was different in geographical location or in the quality from the aforesaid acquired land. Hence, test no.4 is also fulfilled by the sale exemplar Ex.P3 and P5 from table no.1. The fifth test is with respect to the size of the plot of the land covered by the sale exemplar. As already noticed, the land sold through the sale exemplar Ex.P3 is more than 7 Acres, which is of a reasonable measurement of a plot of land when compared with the land acquired. As all these tests stand fulfilled, there is no reason to deprive the landowners of the price as ascertained in the sale exemplar Ex.P5 (in table1).
Thus, it is crystal clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has recognized in more than one judgments that if there is no dissimilarity between the acquired land and the sale exemplar produced which is of a reasonable size/parcel of land, it would not be appropriate for the court to apply proportionate deduction to reduce the value.
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 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 For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 25 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 26 of relatively small sized plots, used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. The deduction can be applied when comparable sale exemplar is of a plot of a smaller 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 some other 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 near residential area or the 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 facts and circumstances of the cases, it would be against the statutory intendment.
Section 23 does not provide for any cut or deduction, either on account of development works or development cost. 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/agricultural land of reasonable size, then the deduction made on account of development work or development cost, in the considered opinion of this Court, shall not be appropriate. Most of the landowners are farmers. This can be explained by an example. Hypothetically, if a farmer purchases a large chunk of land just before the notification under Section 4. On the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 26 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 27 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, he shall stand deprived of the market value given by him while purchasing the land. It would be against the spirit/intention of the Act. While assessing the market value of the undeveloped/agriculture 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 opinion of the court would not be appropriate and justified. The cut/deduction has been applied by the courts in order to arrive at a correct figure representing the market value of the acquired land. This method has been devised by the Court 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 base, makes an attempt to work out the fair market value of the acquired land.
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, he is not being compensated adequately due to the deduction for the development. This cannot be the intention of the legislature.
Intention of the Legislature is to make the laws fair and just for the people whose land is taken compulsorily. For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 27 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 28 Once, a large chunk of agricultural land is being acquired for carving out a residential/commercial or industrial colony and the sale exemplar of plots of reasonable size of agriculture land are available, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to apply 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 deprived of the land even if such part is being used for providing common facilities. The landowner does not directly gain on account of reservation of land for common facilities.
The landowners suffers a double loss. On the one hand, he is deprived of the acquired land whereas on the other hand, he does not get appropriate amount.
There is yet another aspect of the matter. The development agency/organization/colonizer/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 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. Similarly, the development cost incurred or to be incurred for providing common facilities is also required to be borne by the developer.
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 deprived of the For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 28 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 29 adequate compensation. 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.
Now coming back to the facts of the case. There is another aspect which needs adjudication. Sh. Narwal has relied upon the award passed by LAC (Ex.P12) which relates to acquisition of land, started by the notification under Section 4 of 1894 issued on 11.01.2010. No doubt, the land is located in the village in question, however, there is no evidence that the relied piece of land is comparable. Moreover, the assessment by the LAC is with respect to 11.01.2010, the period post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, whereas in this batch of cases the crucial date for assessment of price is 13.02.2008.
Therefore, Ex.P12 should not be relied upon.
However, there is one more aspect of the matter. Learned counsel representing the landowners have contended that while assessing the market value of the land upto the depth of 1 acre located on the National Highway has been assessed at the rate of Rs.28,69,910/- per acre by this Court in RFA No. 926 of 2017 with respect to acquisition of the land vide notification dated 09.06.2006 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. In the present case, Sh.Krishan (Patwari) while appearing as a witness on behalf of the HSIIDC has admitted that a land measuring 10 acres is located on the National Highway. It is well known that the land For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 29 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 30 located on a National Highway fetches a higher price as compared to the parcels of the land located in the interior/ hinterland. The Reference Court has also noticed this distinction while assessing the compensation amount while observing that the market value of land abutting the National Highway being more valuable is assessed at Rs.24,50,000/- per acre.
In the previous batch of appeals i.e RFA-926-2017 the landowners had produced a sale exemplar of land being sold at the rate of Rs.31,88,789/- per acre. In this batch, the reference court has assessed the land located on the National Highway upto the depth of 1 acre @ 24,50,000/- per acre whereas the remaining/ land located in interior has been assessed @ 21,37,000/- per acre. This figure has been arrived at by the Reference Court increasing the basic value by 10%.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the market value of the land on the National Highway upto the depth of 1 acre is increased by 10% over and above Rs.28,08,242/-. Hence, the acquired land abutting the National Highway upto the depth of 1 acre is assessed at the rate of Rs.30,89,662/-.
HSIIDC has filed various writ petitions assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 28-A of the 1894 Act. It has been contended that the LAC should have waited for the final determination by the Court. As this Court has adjudicated upon the aforesaid issue resulting in increase in the market value payable, therefore, there is no substance in the writ For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 30 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 31 petitions.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment passed by the Reference Court is modified. It is declared that the landowners of the acquired land situated upto the depth of 1 acre on the National Highway no.10 shall be entitled to be paid the market value at Rs.30,89,066/- per acre whereas the landowners of the remaining land shall be entitled to be paid at the Rs.28,08,242/- per acre which is an increase of Rs.6,71,242/- per acre over and above the assessment made by the Reference Court in respect of parcels of land located beyond the distance of depth equivalent to that of 1 acre. Whereas with respect to parcels of land located upto the depth equivalent to 1 acre, the market value of the acquired land has been increased by Rs. 6,39,066/- per acre over and above the amount awarded by the Reference Court. The landowners shall also be entitled to the aforesaid amount alongwith all the statutory benefits as per the amended 'the 1894 Act'.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
10.11.2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr. No. Case number TITLE
1. RFA-1625-2016 NAFE SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS (MAIN CASE)
2. CWP-10110-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S JITENDER AND OTHERS
3. CWP-10118-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 31 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 32 LTD. V/S SATBIR AND OTHERS
10. CWP-10192-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SMT. ROSHANI AND OTHERS
14. CWP-10196-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SMT. KHAZANI DEVI AND OTHERS
18. CWP-10200-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD V/S MUKHTIYAR AND OTHERS
20. CWP-10203-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S MURTI DEVI AND OTHERS
21. CWP-10204-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 32 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 33 LTD. V/S PREM SINGH AND OTHERS
22. CWP-10205-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SOM PARKASH BAWA AND OTHERS
25. CWP-10208-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S DARSHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS
27. CWP-10210-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SANTRA AND OTHERS
28. CWP-10211-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S MUKHTIYAR AND OTHERS
30. CWP-10214-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SANTRA AND OTHERS
32. CWP-10216-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL ANDINFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (HSIIDC) V/S SUMUNDER AND OTHERS
33. CWP-10217-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S JITENDER AND OTHERS
34. CWP-10222-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD V/S SUSHILA AND OTHERS
38. RFA-2579-2016 DAYANAND AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
39. CWP-12347- HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND 2021 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 33 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 34 LTD. V/S RANBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
41. CWP-12380-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S MUKHTIYAR SINGH AND OTHERS
49. CWP-12403-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S DHANPATI AND OTHERS
53. CWP-12418-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SEHAJ RAM AND OTHERS
56. CWP-12452-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S MANJEET AND OTHERS
57. CWP-12455-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 34 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 35 LTD. V/S BIJENDER AND OTHERS
58. CWP-12456-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S TARAWATI AND OTHERS
61. CWP-12464-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SATTAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
64. CWP-12472-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S INDER SINGH AND OTHERS
66. CWP-12479-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SMT. BRAHMO DEVI AND OTHERS
72. CWP-12508-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S BALWAN AND OTHERS
74. CWP-12516-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S CHATTAR SINGH AND OTHERS
75. CWP-12523-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 35 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 36 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S RAJENDER @ RAJINDER AND OTHERS
80. CWP-12542-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S MUKHTIAR SINGHAND OTHERS
84. CWP-12958-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SATTAN KAUR(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
86. CWP-12970-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S JEET RAM @ JOT RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
89. CWP-12982-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S JEET RAM @ JOT RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
91. CWP-12993-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S DHANPATI DEVI AND OTHERS
92. CWP-12997-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 36 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 37 LTD. V/S RAMESH AND OTHERS
94. CWP-13155-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S DAYANAND(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
95. CWP-13170-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S BALWAN SINGH AND OTHERS
96. CWP-13188-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SMT. PHOOLA AND OTHERS
97. CWP-13192-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SATTAN KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
99. CWP-10431-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S SMT. INDERAWATI AND OTHERS
100. CWP-10527-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S NIRMLA AND OTHERS
102. CWP-10534-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S NANHI, AND OTHERS
103. CWP-12340-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S ANITA AND OTHERS
104. RFA-1628-2016 SMT. JAGWANTI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
105. RFA-1629-2016 SMT. CHAND KAUR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
106. RFA-1630-2016 SATYAWAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
107. RFA-1631-2016 PARKASH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
108. RFA-1632-2016 BIJE SINGH(DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
109. RFA-1633-2016 SATYAWAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
110. RFA-1634-2016 SMT. BIMLA AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
111. RFA-1635-2016 UMED SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 37 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 38
112. RFA-1636-2016 PREET SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
113. RFA-1637-2016 SATYAWAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
114. RFA-1638-2016 RAGHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
115. RFA-1639-2016 DIWANA(DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
116. RFA-1640-2016 BIJE SINGH(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
117. RFA-1641-2016 BIJE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
118. RFA-1642-2016 DIWANA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
119. RFA-1643-2016 PREET SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
120. RFA-1644-2016 BIJE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
121. RFA-1645-2016 PREET SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
122. RFA-1646-2016 PREET SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
123. RFA-1647-2016 PREET SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
124. RFA-2133-2016 SURENDER SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
125. RFA-2134-2016 KARTAR SINGH(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
126. FA-2135-2016 DHARAMPAL(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
127. RFA-2136-2016 SURENDER SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
128. RFA-2137-2016 RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
129. RFA-2138-2016 BALWAN SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
130. RFA-2139-2016 SURENDER SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
131. RFA-2140-2016 SURENDER SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
132. RFA-2370-2016 NAFE SINGH & ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
133. RFA-2371-2016 CHANDER SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
134. RFA-2372-2016 CHANDER SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
135. RFA-2373-2016 SHAMSHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
136. RFA-2374-2016 HUKUM SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
137. RFA-2375-2016 DHARAMBIR & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 38 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 39 OTHERS
138. FA-2376-2016 SOBHA V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
139. RFA-2377-2016 SOBHA V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
140. RFA-2378-2016 BIJENDER SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
141. RFA-2379-2016 CHANDER SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
142. RFA-2380-2016 CHANDER SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
143. RFA-2381-2016 CHANDER SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
144. RFA-2382-2016 SHAMSHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
145. RFA-2515-2016 SARDARA THRO LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
146. RFA-2575-2016 MAHABIR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
147. RFA-2576-2016 DAYA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
148. RFA-2577-2016 SMT. KRISHNA & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
149. RFA-2578-2016 SMT. RANI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
150. RFA-2580-2016 MAHABIR & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
151. RFA-2581-2016 SMT. MEENA AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
152. RFA-3819-2016 RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
153. RFA-4293-2016 SMT. HAR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS& OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
154. RFA-4294-2016 SMT. HAR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
155. RFA-4296-2016 SMT. HAR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
156. RFA-4297-2016 SMT. HAR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
157. RFA-171-2017 MUKHTIYAR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
158. RFA-206-2017 SUKHI RAM & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
159. RFA-1023-2017 SMT. HAR KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
160. RFA-1099-2017 BALWAN(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
161. RFA-1101-2017 CHAND SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
162. RFA-5057-2017 SUKHI RAM & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
163. RFA-127-2018 CHANDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 39 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 40
164. RFA-171-2018 SHANTI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
165. RFA-2939-2018 SAMUNDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
166. RFA-3636-2018 RAMESH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR ROHTAK AND OTHERS
167. RFA-3757-2018 SMT. VIDYA AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
168. RFA-3758-2018 SOMVIR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
171. RFA-4181-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL &INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BHOPAL AND OTHERS
176. RFA-4187-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DILBAGH SINGH AND OTHERS
177. RFA-4188-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT.MEHLO DEVI AND OTHERS
178. RFA-4189-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BIJE SINGH(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
179. RFA-4190-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORAION AND ANR V/S PREET SINGH AND OTHERS
181. RFA-4192-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 40 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 41 PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. HAR KAUR AND OTHERS
182. RFA-4193-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. CHAND KAUR AND OTHERS
187. RFA-4198-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SATYAWAN AND OTHERS
188. RFA-4199-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S PREET SINGH & OTHERS
189. RFA-4200-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. HAR KAUR AND OTHERS
191. RFA-4202-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DAYANAND AND OTHERS
192. RFA-4203-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S CHANDER SINGH AND OTHERS
193. RFA-4204-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SATYAWAN AND OTHERS
194. RFA-4205-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. HAR KAUR AND OTHERS
195. RFA-4206-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 41 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 42 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SATYAWAN AND OTHERS
198. RFA-4209-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR. V/S SMT. SUNITA AND OTHERS
199. RFA-4210-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ANR V/S PREET SINGH AND OTHERS
200. RFA-4278-2018 MD HSIIDC AND ANR V/S SMT. JAGWANTI AND OTHERS
201. RFA-4279-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SOMVIR AND OTHERS
203. RFA-4281-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S CHAND SINGH (DECEASED)THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
204. RFA-4282-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORAION AND ANR V/S NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS
206. RFA-4284-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S AMIT AND OTHERS
207. RFA-4285-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S PREET SINGH & OTHERS
208. RFA-4286-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT.VIDYA AND OTHERS
209. RFA-4287-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S CHANDER SINGH AND OTHERS
210. RFA-4288-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 42 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 43 PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DEEP CHAND @ DEEPA AND OTHERS
212. RFA-4290-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DHARAMPAL AND OTHERS
213. RFA-4291-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S INDER SINGH AND OTHERS
215. RFA-4293-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SOBHA AND OTHERS
219. RFA-4297-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. SHANTI AND OTHERS
220. RFA-4298-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BIJE SINGH(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
221. RFA-4299-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S PREET SINGH AND OTHERS
222. RFA-4300-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S PREET SINGH & OTHERS
223. RFA-4301-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BALWAN SINGH AND OTHERS
224. RFA-4302-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT.HAR KAUR AND OTHERS
225. RFA-4303-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 43 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 44 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DAYA NAND AND OTHERS
226. RFA-4304-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BIJE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
227. RFA-4305-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S JAI SINGH AND OTHERS
228. RFA-4306-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DIWANA AND OTHERS
229. RFA-4307-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S NAFE SINGH AND OTHERS
231. RFA-4309-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SAMUNDER AND OTHERS
234. RFA-4312-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. RANI AND OTHERS
235. RFA-4313-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SARDARA AND OTHERS
236. RFA-4314-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S MUKHTIYAR AND OTHERS
238. RFA-4316-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. CHALTI AND OTHERS
239. RFA-4317-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 44 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 45 PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. SHANTI AND OTHERS
240. RFA-4318-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. MEENA AND OTHERS
245. RFA-4323-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BHULE AND OTHERS
247. RFA-4325-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S AMIT AND OTHERS
250. RFA-4328-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S DHUP SINGH AND OTHERS
254. RFA-4332-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 45 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 46 DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SUKHI RAM AND OTHERS
255. RFA-4333-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SMT. KRISHNA AND OTHERS
257. RFA-5117-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S BIJE SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS AND OTHERS
259. RFA-6293-2018 MD HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV CORP PANCHKULA AND ANR V/S SOBHA AND OTHERS
261. RFA-1268-2019 RAMPHAL AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
262. RFA-6295-2018 MD HSIIDC AND ANR V/S BIJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS
263. RFA-556-2019 BHIM SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
264. RFA-1269-2019 RAMPHAL AND ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
265. RFA-1270-2019 DEEP CHAND @ DEEPA THROUGH LRS. RAVINDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
266. RFA-1271-2019 RAMPHAL AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
267. RFA-1272-2019 RAMPHAL AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
268. RFA-1788-2019 BALRAJ AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
269. RFA-1789-2019 PREET SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
270. RFA-1790-2019 BHOPAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
271. RFA-2237-2019 JAI SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
272. RFA-2375-2019 SMT. MEHLO DEVI(DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 46 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 ::: RFA-1625-2016 (O&M) and connected cases 47 AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
273. RFA-2410-2019 JAGDISH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
274. RFA-2411-2019 KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
275. RFA-2412-2019 JAI SINGH AND OTHERS V/S THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
276. RFA-2413-2019 AMIT AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
277. RFA-2606-2019 SMT. BIMLA AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
278. RFA-972-2020 INDER SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
279. RFA-1031-2020 DHUP SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
280. RFA-741-2021 BALBIR SINGH NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
281. CWP-1430-2019 BALBIR SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 10.11.2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) rekha JUDGE For Subsequent orders see IOIN-RFA-1625-2016 Decided by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL 47 of 47 ::: Downloaded on - 23-01-2022 03:09:53 :::