Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. In RFA-384-2013, arising out of LAC-711-2009/2011- Tej Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, wherein Reference Court decided 26 petitions pertaining to Dhana, the pleadings would go on to show that the landowners in their amended petitions had claimed that the land was situated near IMT Manesar and had potential for being used as residential, industrial and commercial complexes and fell on the Kundli- Manesar-Palwal Highway. The market value was stated to be not less than Rs.3 crores per acre and compensation was sought at Rs.8000/- per sq.yard. The stand of the HSIIDC was that apart from the compensation, annuity was also to be granted. The change of land use was highlighted 15 of 51 RFA No.384 of 2013 & other connected cases -16- and it was averred that the Land Acquisition Collector had also over- assessed the market value by adopting uniform compensation by totally disregarding the location, accessibility and proximity with the rural areas. Nearness to the National Highway No.8 and industrial area were denied which were stated to be far off from the land in question and therefore, the landowners were not entitled to seek any enhancement of compensation of the acquired land. The water was not available in the area selected by the Government and even the land had to be levelled and water level was also low and therefore, the land was low yielding. The IMT Manesar was stated to be at a distance of more than 10 kms and Gurugram city, as such, was at a distance of more than 35 kms. It was wrong and denied that the land fell on the KMP Highway and therefore, the value was not Rs.3 crores per acre.

32. In RFA-6369-2013 arising out of LAC-745-2010, Ranbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Rs.10,000/- per sq.yards had been asked for 20 of 51 RFA No.384 of 2013 & other connected cases -21- on the ground that land was surrounded by so many fully developed factories which were in existence prior to the Section 4 notification and close to abadi of Village Dhana. The land yielded 3 crops in a year and income of Rs.5 lacs were obtained per year and the land was hardly 14 kms away from the Gurugram main city. Stand of the Corporation was similar that the land was 10 kms away from the developed area of HSIIDC and not 14 kms away from the Gurugram main city. The sectors and complex were at a distance of more than 14 kms from the acquired land. Sale deeds (Exts.P1 to P4) dated 10.12.2007, 04.12.2006 and 23.03.2007, brought by Ashok Kumar from the office of the Sub-Registrar are the same were post notification and therefore, do not deserve consideration. Ranbir Singh, in his affidavit, relied upon the earlier awards in Avtar Singh's case decided on 18.12.2010 and claimed Rs.4 crores per acre. The Master- plans of Gurugram Manesar of 2021 and 2025 AD were exhibited as Ext.P33 & P34 and were marked as Mark 'A', Mark 'X' and Mark 'Y'. Dalbir Singh, Patwari, PW4, brought the original Aks Shajra of Village Dhana and stated that the revenue estate of Bas Huria was on the northern side of the revenue estate Dhana and the revenue estate of Kasan was on the southern side. He admitted that the acquired land was used for agricultural purposes exclusively till the time of taking possession. He stated that National Highway No.8 was 6 kms from the acquired land and KMP Expressway was passing through the revenue estate of Village Dhana and the land was adjoining the Expressway. He further submitted that there was no approach to the KMP Expressway from one village to the 21 of 51 RFA No.384 of 2013 & other connected cases -22- other. Kuldeep, Patwari appeared as RW1 and stated that the acquired land, to the extent of 80% was to be used as green belt, railway corridor etc. and remaining 20% was only to be developed as Transport Hub. Awards had already been passed of the adjoining land (Exts.P4 to P6). He stated that the Collector's rate of the acquired land was not more than Rs.8-9 lacs per acre.

33. Similarly, in RFA-7913-2013, arising out of LAC-1742-2010, M/s Pagoda Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & others, which was consolidated with M/s Nature Projects Pvt. Ltd., reference was made to various sale deeds again of the year 2006 in the claim petition from March, 2006 to June, 2006, to claim that the value was wrongly fixed and the value of the land was claimed at Rs.2 crores per acre for Village Dhana. The sale deeds were, accordingly, controverted by holding out that they were not pertaining to the relevant time and the rate had rightly been fixed. The land acquired was practically agricultural land and the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value at an higher amount. Shri Anil Mohindra, who appeared as PW1, claimed that the value was Rs.1.50 crores and referred to the sale deeds in favour of M/s Orient Crafts and other sale deeds which are of post notification. In cross-examination, he admitted that the market value at that time was Rs.30 lacs which was clarified that the same was the rate at the time of purchase of the land in the year 2003-04. He could not tell about who had purchased any land at Rs.1.50 crores per acre. The sale deeds which were referred to were not of Village Dhana but were of adjoining villages. He stated that the acquired 22 of 51 RFA No.384 of 2013 & other connected cases -23- land was 4 kms away from the National Highway No.8 and thereafter, stated that the said land was adjacent to the KMP Expressway. Mr.Bhatti, appearing as witness of the Corporation, admitted that the land was abutting the KMP Expressway but there was no exit for the acquired land and the allottees could not take benefit of the same. The acquired land was to be used for industrial purposes after development of infrastructure. He denied the fact that the value of the land was more than Rs.2 crores per acre. The documents (Exts.R1 to R8) were also appended. The sale deeds dated 29.04.2005 (Ext.R4) for 18 marlas and similarly for 8 kanals 17 marlas of Village Dhana and dated 15.04.2005 for Rs.16,59,375/- in favour of M/s Spiritual Developers Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, 46 kanals 4 marlas which were sold for Rs.86,82,500/- were brought on record. Similarly, Ext.R7 dated 15.04.2005 for 20 kanals 16 marlas which was sold for Rs.39 lacs, Ext.R8 pertains to 15 kanals 12 marlas which was sold for Rs.96,75,000/- on 19.04.2005.

39. In RFA-7119-2013 arising out of LAC-712-2013, Chunni Lal & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, for Village Bas Huria, it was averred that factories existed on the National Highway No.8 adjacent to 27 of 51 RFA No.384 of 2013 & other connected cases -28- the village which was stressed upon and the existence of IMT for the last 15 years. The institutes, colleges and schools like the IIT Engineering College, public schools, hospitals in Village Bhanglora existed within few kms from the acquired land. Express Highway of Kundli-Manesar also passed from the nearby land and there was there was provision for State Bus Terminal in the nearby Village Panchgaon which was 5 kms from the land in question. The land was stated to be at a distance of 1 km from the National Highway No.8 and the construction of the new Expressway and the National Highway No.8, to substantiate the claim compensation of Rs.5 crores per acre. The defence of the Corporation was that it was only agricultural land. In evidence, Rajender Singh submitted his affidavit and in cross-examination, stood by the same that the land was situated 1 ½-2 kms from the National Highway No.8 and the total land had been acquired by the Government. Mr.Bhatti brought on record the lay-out plan (RW1/1) and denied that any international company was running in or adjacent to the acquired land. He further denied the suggestion that the land was 5 kms away from the National Highway No.8. He further admitted that the land for KMP Expressway was acquired before the present acquisition of the land. At the time of issuance of Section 4 notification, Sectors 8 & 3A had been developed. Stand was that the land was agricultural in nature and that the land near all the 5 villages was of different potentiality though the Collector had awarded the same rate. He submitted that it was uneven land and he did not know whether the acquired land had connectivity with the roads. The site-plan (Ext.RW1/1) 28 of 51 RFA No.384 of 2013 & other connected cases -29- would show the extent of acquisition and how a strip of land at the fag end which was abutting the KMP Expressway was developed as Transport Hub with one strip going parallel to the Expressway whereas an another one coming in top in the form of a sharp edge into the IMT Manesar over and above Sector 8 which was over and above the land allotted to the Maruti Complex.