Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hsiidc vs Dhani Ram And Ors on 24 November, 2021
RFA-4676-2017
and connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA-4676-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.11.2021
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (now Haryana State
Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited)
....Appellant
Versus
Dhani Ram and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate
for the appellants (in RFA-3480 to 3484 of 2017)
Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate
for appellant (in RFA-225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231 and
232 of 2018)
for respondent No.4 (in RFA-5290 of 2017)
Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate
for appellant (in RFA-362 of 2019)
Mr. Naveen Thakur, Advocate
for the appellant (in RFA-4031 of 2018)
Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
for appellants (in RFA-2779 to 2786, 2961, 2966, 3149 to
3152, 5509 of 2017, RFA-1427 and 87 of 2018)
for respondents (in RFA-4714, 4716, 4718, 4719, 4722, 4723,
4725, 4728, 4729, 4732, 4748, 4774, 4831, 4824, 4720, 4717
and 4833 of 2017)
Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate
for appellants (in RFA-4696 of 2017, RFA- 4604, 5140 and
5141 of 2018)
Mr. Abhay Chauhan, Advocate
for appellants (in RFA-4576 to 4582, 5198, 4583, 4584, 4585
of 2017, RFA-40 and 8 of 2020)
Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate
for cross-objector (in XOBJR-31 and 32 of 2020)
Mr. Shoaib Khan, Advocate, and
Mr. M.K. Chouhan, Advocate
1 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
for appellants.
Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate
for appellant (in RFA-4045 of 2017).
Mr. Ajit Singh Lamba, Advocate
for the respondents (in RFA-4897 and 4852 of 2017)
Mr. G.S. Rawat, Advocate
for respondents (in RFA-4724, 4827 and 4695 of 2017)
Mr. Parshotam Lal Singla, Advocate
for appellants (in RFA-3857, 3858, 3859 and 3860 of 2017
for respondents (in RFA-4670 and 4757 of 2017)
Mr. Gopal Soni, Advocate
for Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate
for landowners.
Mr. Rayhan Khan, Advocate
for landowner.
Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocate
for HSIIDC.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana, and
Ms. Vibha Tiwari, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. By this judgment, a batch of Regular First Appeals and cross
objections, (detail whereof is on the foot of the judgment), filed under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as
'the 1894 Act') shall stand disposed of. Learned counsel representing the
parties are ad idem that all the appeals in the present bunch of cases can be
conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, the Reference
Court has passed a consolidated judgment while deciding 108 reference
petitions filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The necessary particulars
of the acquisition are as under:-
2 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
Date of Date of Award no.4 Total Land Name of village and measurement
notification notification of the land acquired therein
under under
Section 4 Section 6 of
1894 Act
15.12.2008 18.12.2009 12.12.2011 568 acres Alipur (143 Acres 1 kanal and 13
3 kanals 12 marlas)
marlas
Toka (24 Acres 4 kanals and 14
marlas)
Khangesra (352 Acres 5 kanals)
Naggal (4 Acres 3 kanals and 15
marlas)
Sukhdarshanpur (2 Acres 7
kanals and 14 marlas)
Khatauli (38 Acres 4 kanals and
14 marlas)
2. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as
'the LAC') assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.30,00,000/-per acre,
whereas the Reference Court, vide an award dated 31.01.2017, assessed
the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.41,17,820/- per
acre. The landowners claim that the acquired land is not only located at a
prime location near Kot Ballah, Urban Complex, but is also located within
the municipal limits of the Municipal Corporation, Panchkula. They claim
that the Government has fixed the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.72,00,000/-per acre. Per contra, the State claims that the acquired land
is neither located near the residential Sector 7 and 8 of Panchkula nor
located near Kot Ballah, Urban Complex and Industrial Estate, Alipur.
Therefore, the market value assessed by the LAC is fair and reasonable. It
is denied that the Government has fixed the rate of Rs.72,00,000/-per acre
for the land situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation,
Panchkula.
3 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
3. 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 notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP.
2) Relief."
4. Evidence produced by the parties
4.1 Oral evidence of the landowners
The landowners, in order to prove their case, have examined
the following witnesses (as recorded in the judgment of the Reference
Court):-
PW1 Baljinder Singh s/o Noordhan Singh
PW2 Parveen Kumar, Assistant Town Planner from the office
of District Town Planner.
PW3 Sanjiv Kumar, Clerk of the office of DRO
PW4 Ram Nath Field Kanungoo
PW5 Ranbir Singh Deswal, Field Kanungoo
PW6 Harjit Singh s/o Balwant Singh
PW7 Ujagar Singh s/o Niranjan Singh
PW8 Swaran Singh S/o Gurdial Singh
PW9 Gian Singh s/o Waryam Singh
PW10Harjinder Singh s/o Ajaib Singh
PW11Jarnail Singh s/o Kehar Singh
PW12Ujagar Singh s/o Niranjan Singh
PW13Lekh Raj, Halqa Patwari Village Batod
PW14Narender Singh Halqa Patwari Barwala
PW15 Ram Niwas, Architect of District Courts
PW16 Parveen Kumar Gupta, Asstt. Town Planner from the
office of District Town Planner, Panchkula
PW17Rohit Kumar, Manager (IA), HSIDC, Barwala."
4.2 Documentary evidence of the landowners
Apart from this, the landowners have also produced the
4 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
following documentary evidence:-
"Ex. PW1/B - Award
PW2/A Total plan of District Panchkula
PW2/B - Lay out plan of Billa, Kot
PW2/C - Layout plan of HSIDC Panchkula Extension
PW2/D - Layout plan of Sector-16, Panchkula Ext.-II
PW-2/E - Layout plan of Extension II Panchkula
consisting of Sectors 12-12A, 13-13A.
PW2/F - Layout plan of Sector-14 Extension-II,
Panchkula.
PW3/A - Notification u/s 4 dated 16.06.1992 regarding
acquisition of land of Village Alipur i.e. earlier
acquisition of HSIDC for setting up Industrial Estate.
PW3/B - Notification u/s 6 dated 17th June 1993
regarding land of Village Alipur for setting up
Industrial Estate Barwala.
Ex.PW3/C is the Award No. 1 of 1994-1995 vide
which land measuring 823.19 kanals equivalent to
102.99 acres was acquired of Village Alipur.
Ex.PW3/D - Notification dated 15.12.2008 vide which
the present land has been acquired.
Ex.PW3/E is notification dated 18.12.2009 u/s 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act vide which the present land has
been declared to be acquired.
Ex.PW3/F - Award dated 12.12.2011 vide which the
present land has been acquired.
PW4/P - Aks Shijra of Village Khangesra.
PW4/Q - Aks Shijra of Village Kot.
Ex. PW5/A - Als Shijra of Village Palsara.
Ex.PW5/B - Aks Shijra of Village Alipur.
Ex.PW5/C - Aks Shijra of Village Naggal.
Ex.PW5/D - Aks Shijra of Village Jaloli.
Ex.PW5/E - Aks Shijra of Village Barwala.
Ex.PW5/F - Aks Shijra of Village Batod.
Ex.PW5/G - is Panchkula Extension Draft Layout Plan
- 2031.
Ex. PW12/59 - joint Aks Shijra of Villages Alipur.
Toka, Khangesra, Naggal, Sukhdarshanpur and Khatoli
under acquisition.
PW12/60 - Joint Aks Shijra of aforesaid villages under
acquisition.
Ex.PW12/61 - Layout plan of HSIDC showing the
5 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
acquired land in the present case in red line of all the
villages.
Ex.PX/1 - Notification dated 24.12.2013.
Ex.PX/2 - Notification dated 30.09.2014."
Ex. PX/3 to PX/12 - Awards of different villages vide
which the land for four-laning have been acquired in
the aforesaid villages from Village Barwala to
Panchkula."
4.3 The landowners have also produced various sale deeds in
order to prove the market value of acquired land which have been
summarized in a tabulated form as under:-
Name of Village Alipur/Khagasra/Barwala/Kot/Billa
Sr. Exhibit Produced Date of Sale Area Total Price Per Village Type of
No No. before the Deed Price Acre Land
. Court of
1. PW4/A ADJ, 13.05.2008 450 Sq. 2975000 26756605 Alipur Commercial
Panchkula Meters
2. PW4/8 -do- 03.01.2007 1A 3K 7406250 5000000 Khagasr Chahi
17M a
3. PW4/C -do- 03.01.2007 1A 6K 9281250 5000000 Khagasr -do-
17M a
4. PW4/D -do- 03.01.2007 3A 2K 16562500 5000000 Khagasr -do-
10M a
5. PW4/E -do- 04.06.2007 7A 2K 36562500 5000000 Khagasr -do-
10M a
6. PW4/F -do- 04.01.2008 1A 3K 8550000 6000000 Kot -do-
8M
7. PW4/G -do- 28.01.2008 1A 4K 8775000 5850000 Kot -do-
8. PW4/H -do- 22.08.2007 1 Acre 5700000 5700000 Kot -do-
9. PW4/1 -do- 19.09.2007 6A 4K 38171250 5794497 Kot -do-
14M
10. PW4/J -do- 19.09.2007 2A 5K 15484218 5856915 Kot -do-
3M
11. PW4/K -do- 09.10.2007 2A 5K 15795000 5717647 Kot -do-
12M
12. PW4/L -do- 22.08.2007 1 Acre 5700000 5700000 Kot -do-
13. PW4/M -do- 28.01.2008 1 Acre 5850000 5850000 Kot -do-
14. PW4/N -do- 24.04.2006 2 Kanal 3000000 12000000 Billa Brani
15. PW4/O -do- 12.12.2008 3 Marlas 200000 10666667 Billa Residential
16. P12/1 -do- 03.01.2007 3A 2K 16562500 5000000 Khagasr Chahi
(Same 10M a
as (530
PW4/D) Marlas)
17. P12/2 -do- 03.01.2007 1A 3K 7406250 5000000 Khagasr -do-
(Same 17M a
as (237
PW4/B) marlas)
6 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
18. P12/3 -do- 03.01.2007 1A 6K 9281250 5000000 Khagasr -do-
(Same 17M a
as Acre
PW4/C) (297
marlas)
19. P12/4 -do- 04.06.2007 7A 2K 36562500 5000000 Khagasr -do-
(Same 10M a
as
PW4/E)
20. P12/5 -do- 13.05.2008 450 Sq. 2975000 26756604 Alipur Commercial
(Same Meters
as
PW4/A)
21. P12/6 -do- 26.03.2009 450 Sq. 2460500 22129286 Alipur -do-
Meters
22. P12/8 -do- 28.04.2009 15200 4700000 1484230 Barwala Commercial
Sq. Ft.
23. P12/9 -do- 19.05.2009 1697.50 1905000 5387063 Alipur Commercial
Sq. Ft.
24. P12/10 -do- 11.06.2009 250 Sq. 1932500 31295546 Barwala Commercial
Meters
25. P12/11 -do- 21.07.2009 1000 Sq. 5710365 23113038 Alipur Commercial
Meters
26. P12/12 -do- 23.07.2009 1000 Sq. 2300000 9309385 Alipur Commercial
Meters
27. P12/13 -do- 23.07.2009 250 Sq. 800000 12955465 Alipur Commercial
Meters
28. P12/14 ADJ, 20.07.2009 250 1932500 31295547 Barwala Commercial
Panchkula Sq.Meters
29. P12/15 -do- 18.08.2009 100 5819081 23553072 Alipur Commercial
Sq.Meter
30. P12/16 -do- 27.08.2009 450 2510000 22574480 Alipur Commercial
Sq.Meters
31. P12/17 -do- 03.09.2009 1875Sq.M 12400000 26763793 Alipur Commercial
eters
32. P12/18 -do- 01.10.2009 450 sq. 2494430 22434446 Alipur Commercial
Meters
33. P12/19 -do- 10.12.2009 450Sq. 2850000 25632378 Alipur Commercial
Meters
34. P12/20 -do- 22.12.2009 450 3110770 27977695 Alipur Commercial
Sq.Meters
35. P12/21 -do- 23.12.2009 250 1650000 26720648 Barwala Commercial
Sq.Meters
36. P12/22 -do- 12.01.2010 450 Sq. 1500000 13490725 Barwala Commercial
Meters
37. P12/23 -do- 12.01.2010 1875 Sq. 2100000 4532578 Alipur Commercial
Meters
38. P12/24 -do- 25.03.2010 2100 Sq. 8500000 16381595 Barwala Commercial
Meters
39. P12/25 -do- 15.04.2010 1000 Sq. 6480000 26228181 Alipur Commercial
Meters
40. P12/26 -do- 20.07.2010 450 Sq. 2900000 26082069 Alipur Commercial
Meters
41. P12/27 -do- 22.07.2010 250 Sq. 1621000 26251012 Barwala Commercial
Meters
42. P12/28 -do- 07.09.2010 1000 Sq. 1700000 6880850 Alipur Commercial
Meters
7 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
43. P12/29 -do- 28.09.2010 1000 Sq. 4000000 16190235 Alipur Commercial
Meters
44. P12/30 -do- 11.10.2010 450 Sq. 2950000 26531759 Alipur Commercial
Meters
45 P12/31 -do- 14.10.2010 1000 Sq. 5200000 21047306 Barwala Commercial
Meters
46. P12/32 -do- 19.10.2010 250 Sq. 1050000 17004049 Barwala Commercial
Meters
47 P12/33 -do- 11.11.2010 1000 Sq. 6521500 26396155 Alipur Commercial
Meters
48. P12/34 -do- 13.01.2011 1000 Sq. 2600000 10523653 Alipur Commercial
Meters
49. P12/35 -do- 31.03.2011 250 Sq. 2350000 38056680 Barwala Commercial
Meters
50. P12/36 -do- 07.04.2011 1000 Sq. 3000000 12142676 Alipur Commercial
Meters
51. P12/37 -do- 28.04.2011 250 Sq. 1540000 24939271 Alipur Commercial
Meters
52. P12/38 -do- 19.05.2011 4 Marla 240000 9600000 Alipur Residential
53. P12/39 -do- 07.06.2011 1000 Sq. 8850000 35820895 Alipur Commercial
Meters
54. P12/40 -do- 07.06.2011 250 Sq. 2655000 42995951 Alipur Commercial
Meters
55. P12/41 -do- 09.06.2010 250 Sq. 3250000 52631579 Alipur Commercial
Meters
56. P12/42 -do- 07.07.2011 2100 Sq. 20600000 39701277 Alipur Commercial
Meters
57. P12/43 -do- 14.07.2011 1875 Sq. 12000000 25900445 Alipur Commercial
Meters
58. P12/44 -do- 26.07.2011 450 Sq. 3200000 28780214 Alipur Commercial
Meters
59. P12/45 -do- 04.08.2011 1000 Sq. 4000000 16190235 Alipur Commercial
Meters
60. P12/46 -do- 11.08.2011 450 Sq. 4166501 37472746 Alipur Commercial
Meters
61. P12/47 -do- 29.09.2011 250 Sq. 2800000 45344129 Balwala Commercial
Meters
62. P12/48 -do- 20.12.2011 312.5 Sq. 3437000 44527935 Barwala Commercial
Meters
63. P12/49 -do- 14.06.2012 450 Sq. 4930000 44339517 Alipur Commercial
Meters
64. P12/50 -do- 26.07.2012 250 Sq. 2500000 40485830 Alipur Commercial
Meters
65. P12/51 -do- 14.08.2012 450 Sq. 4300000 38673412 Alipur Commercial
Meters
66. P12/52 -do- 16.08.2012 450 Sq. 4362500 39235526 Barwala Commercial
Meters
67. P12/53 -do- 18.10.2012 250 Sq. 3000000 48582995 Barwala Commercial
Meters
68. P12/54 -do- 01.01.2013 2100 Sq. 14000000 26981450 Barwala Commercial
Meters
69. P12/55 -do- 12.03.2013 1000 Sq. 12480000 50513534 Alipur Commercial
Meters
70. P12/56 -do- 16.01.2014 1000 Sq. 11132458 45059278 Alipur Commercial
Meters
8 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
71. P12/57 -do- 03.02.2014 510 Sq. 5603338 44470936 Alipur Commercial
Meters
72. P12/58 -do- 06.06.2014 1000 Sq. 9500000 38451809 Barwala Commercial
Meters
73. R/1 -do- 04.12.2008 10 Marlas 260000 4160000 Toka Borani
4.4 Oral and documentary evidence produced by HSIIDC
On the other hand, HSIIDC, Barwala, examined Rohit Kumar,
Manager, AI Sub Division, Barwala, as RW1 and proved the sale deed
dated 05.11.2008 with respect to a plot measuring 10 marlas. The HSIIDC
has also produced Ex.R2, a copy of the award passed by the LAC.
5. Findings of the Reference Court:-
5.1 The Reference Court, after examining the record, has held
that the sale instances from Ex.PW4/O onwards are irrelevant because all
these sale deeds are with respect to sale of developed industrial plots,
which cannot be relied upon while assessing the market value of the
acquired land. The reference Court has also observed that four sale
exemplars are produced with respect to the land located in village
Khangesra. These sale instances namely Ex.PW4/B = P12, Ex.PW4/C =
P12/3, Ex.PW4/D =P12/1 and Ex.PW4/E =P12/4 have been executed
during the contemporaneous period, hence, they are found to be
comparable to the land acquired on the relevant date of notification. The
Reference Court has further found that the various parcels of land
purchased through the three sale deeds i.e Ex.PW4/B, PW4/C and PW4/D
are part of the present acquisition and therefore, are required to be relied
upon for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The Reference
Court has committed an arithmetical error in taking the average sale price
9 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
of the above referred sale deeds at the rate of Rs.61,46,000/- per acre
whereas the learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that the
afore-mentioned parcels of land have been purchased at the rate of
Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court, thereafter, applied a
deduction of 1/3rd on the market value calculated by it and finally,
assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.41,17,820/- per acre.
5.2 The learned counsel representing the various appellants
contends that the Reference Court has committed an error in applying the
development cut of 1/3rd on the market value while overlooking the fact
that the cut of 1/3rd is too excessive. While relying upon the judgments of
the Supreme Court, in Atma Singh vs. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC
568 and Trishala Jain and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and
another (2011) 6 SCC 47, they pray that the Reference Court, at the most,
could deduct 10% of the amount. The learned counsels have also referred
to the statement of Parveen Kumar Gupta, Assistant Town Planner,
Panchkula, who has admitted that village Kot is adjoining to the acquired
land. Sh. M.L.Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellants, has
contended that the Reference Court has erred in assessing the market value
of the acquired land by overlooking the sale exemplar of the highest price
pertaining to the contemporaneous period. He submits that in view of the
judgment passed in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs. State of Punjab (2012)
5 SCC 432, the Court has erred in averaging the price of the various sale
exemplars.
10 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
5.3 On the other hand, learned counsel representing the HSIIDC
has contended that the Reference Court has not only erred in calculating
the amount but has also committed an error in overlooking the evidence
produced. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, contends that the appeals
filed by the HSIIDC deserve acceptance.
5.4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able
assistance perused the judgment passed by the Reference Court as also the
record, which was requisitioned.
5.5 In the considered view of the Court, the following questions
arise for consideration:-
i) "Whether while assessing the market value
of the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, it is mandatory for the Court to impose a
development cut or deduction when the base value is
arrived at on the basis of the sale exemplars of
sufficiently large tract of land available for the
contemporaneous period?
(ii) Whether the Court is required to include the
assumed increase in the market value with respect to
the time gap between the date of the sale exemplar and
the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894
Act?
5.6 Before this Court proceeds to assess the market value, it is
considered appropriate to note the relevant statutory provisions. 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)
11 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
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
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--
12 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
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;
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."
6. Discussion:-
6.1 The first question is whether it is appropriate on the part of
the Reference Court to deduct 1/3rd amount from the market value towards
the utilization of the land for roads, drains, parks and other common
facilities as well as the development cost. The Reference Court has relied
upon the judgment passed in Andhra Pradesh Housing Board vs. K
13 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
Manohar Reddy and others 2010 (12) SCC 707. This Court has
carefully read the aforesaid judgment. In para 14, the court, after
observing that the sale instances of smaller plots of land have been
produced as exemplars, considered it appropriate to apply deduction of
1/3rd amount to arrive at a reasonable and fair valuation. The second
judgment relied upon by the Court is in Lukhnow Development
Authority vs. Krishan Gopal and others 2008 (1) SCC 554. On its
careful reading, it is evident that the aforesaid judgment is peculiar to the
facts of that case wherein the court held that 25% of deduction towards
development shall be appropriate. The Reference Court has also relied
upon the judgment passed in Bhupal Singh and others vs. State of
Haryana and others 2015 (5) SCC 802. In this judgment the court was
determining the market value of the acquired land situated in various
villages of Tehsil Balabgarh, District Faridabad. This case was also
decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties.
6.2 This Bench has recently examined the aforesaid issue in the
Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana and others (RFA-3000-2016 decided on
15.11.2021). The relevant discussion on the issue is as under:-
"7.2 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, shall be
held entitled to a sum of 30% on such market value in
lieu of the compulsory and involuntary nature of
acquisition. In common legal parlance, this amount is
called solatium. This part of the amount is in the nature
of compensation to the owner for depriving him of his
property without his consent.
7.3 This Bench has carefully
14 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
surveyed/examined the various judgments passed by
the courts from time to time providing for deduction or
moderation of the market value. In Lal Chand vs.
Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Court held
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
work. In other words, whenever the acquisition is for
carrying out a developmental work like setting up a
residential/commercial or industrial township in the
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
calculating such deduction is with regard to the cost of
such development work to be carried out by the
acquiring agency. Further, 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 tract of agricultural 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 the development cost to
arrive at an appropriate value for such 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.
7.4 While applying 47% cut/deduction on
the average market value arrived at, the Reference
Court relied upon various judgments passed by the
Supreme Court which are required to be analyzed. 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 the absence
of any evidence to the contrary. It was further held that
in case of several sale exemplars of comparable pieces
of land, the average should be calculated on the basis of
the prices of the exemplars ranging in a narrow
bandwidth. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was 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 Supreme Court held that
no deduction is permissible in a case where the sale is
of a comparable land of reasonable size, which is
extracted as under:-
15 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
"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."
7.5 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 a
Sugar factory. It was observed that the sale exemplars
of small parcels of land have been produced to assess
the market value of a large tract of acquired land. In
those circumstances, the court permitted 10% deduction
towards the development of common facilities.
7.6 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 an industrial conglomerate. Thus, the court
applied a cut of 10%
for the development.
7.7 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 the absence of any other
16 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
material. This judgment lays down the general
guidelines in the absence of any other material
available for determination of the increase to be
awarded.
7.8 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 the
particular case, deduction upto 75% is permissible.
7.9 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 exemplars produced are 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 sale exemplar of the
land and to arrive at a fair valuation on the basis
thereof.
"7.10 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 the 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,
required to be fulfilled, then, there is no reason for not
awarding the price similar to the market value as
ascertained in the relevant sale deed exemplar. The
relevant discussion is 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
17 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
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 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.
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
18 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
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.
7.11 The learned senior counsel relies upon
the judgment in Sajan(supra), to contend that 20%
deduction would be appropriate in the present cases.
This court has carefully read the aforesaid judgment in
which the land was compulsorily acquired for Hiwera
Dam Project. The acquired land was measuring around
6 acres. The court while referring to the judgment
passed in Lal Chand (supra) held that 20% deduction
would be appropriate. The next judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel is in Subh Ram (supra). In this
case, the compulsory acquisition was for establishment
of a jail. In para 16 of the judgment, the court held that
when the price of the small residential plot is required
to be adjusted to work out the market value of the large
tract of undeveloped land, the appropriate deduction to
the extent of 75% can be ordered. On the other hand,
where the value of the acquired land is being assessed
with reference to the sale of an adjacent agricultural
land, no deduction is required to be made towards the
development cut. Para 16 of the aforesaid judgment is
extracted as under:-
"Therefore, when deduction is made
from the value of a small residential plot towards
the development cost, to arrive at the value of a
large tract of agricultural or undeveloped land
with development potential, the deduction has
nothing to do with the purpose for which the
land is acquired. The deduction is with reference
to the price of the small residential plot, to work
back the value of the large tract of undeveloped
land. On the other hand, where the value of
acquired agricultural land is determined with
reference to the sale price of a neighbouring
agricultural land, no deduction need be made
towards `development cost'. "
19 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
7.12 In the same judgment, the Bench,
after referring to the various other judgments, held that
the observations made in Atma Singh vs. State of
Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 are with reference to
special facts of that particular case and they should not
be read out of context. Para 32 is extracted as under:-
"The above observations in Atma
Singh no doubt seem to suggest that where the
acquisition is for a residential lay out, deduction
towards development cost is a must, but if the
acquisition is for an industry which does not
require forming a layout of sites, the market
value of small residential plots may be adopted
without any cuts towards development cost. The
said observations are made with reference to the
special facts of that case. If they are read out of
context to support a contention that the purpose
of acquisition is a relevant factor to avoid the
deduction of development cost in valuation, it
may then be necessary to consider the said
observations as having been made per incuriam,
as they overlook a mandatory statutory provision
-- section 24 (clause fifthly) of the Act and the
series of decisions of larger benches of this
Court which hold that when value of large tracts
of undeveloped lands is sought to be determined
with reference to small residential plots in
developed area, it is mandatory to deduct an
appropriate percentage towards development
cost. But it may be unnecessary to consider
whether the observations are per incuriam as
para 15 of the decision makes it clear that what
is stated therein, is with reference to the special
facts of that case, with a view not to disturb the
smaller deduction of 10% by the High Court,
and not intended to be statement of law."
7.13 Thus, it is apparent 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 is of a
reasonable size, then, it shall not be appropriate for the
court to apply proportionate deduction to reduce the
20 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
market value.
7.14 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 of relatively small sized plots or
are being used for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes. The deduction can be applied when
comparable sale exemplar is of a plot of a very small
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 different 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 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 aforesaid
principles while making the deduction in the facts and
circumstances of the individual cases, it shall be against
the statutory intendment. 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 of reasonable size, then any
deduction which is made on account of development
work or development cost, in the considered opinion of
this Court, shall not be considered appropriate. This can
be explained by an example. Hypothetically, if a farmer
purchases a sufficiently large chunk of land just before
the notification under Section 4. On the 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
21 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
cut or development cost per se, he shall stand deprived
of the market value paid by him while purchasing the
land. It would be against the spirit/intention of the Act.
While assessing the market value of the
undeveloped/agricultural 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 is applied by the courts in order to arrive
at a correct figure representing the true market value of
the acquired land on the relevant date. This method has
been devised by the Courts 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 the base, endeavours
to work out the fair market value of the acquired land.
7.15 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, they are not being
compensated adequately due to the deduction towards
the development. This cannot be the intention of the
legislature. The fundamental intention of the
Legislature has always been to make the land laws fair,
just and reasonable towards the sufferers of compulsory
land acquisition.
7.16 Once a large chunk of agricultural
land is being acquired for carving out a
residential/commercial or industrial colony and the sale
exemplars of plots of reasonable size of agricultural
land are available, then in the considered opinion of
this Court, it would not be appropriate to apply a
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 in the shoes of a loser even if some
part of the acquired land is being used for providing
common facilities. The landowner does not gain
anything exclusively on account of reservation of land
for common facilities. In fact, the landowner suffers a
dual loss. On the one hand, he is deprived of the
acquired land and on the other hand, he does not
receive a fair and appropriate amount towards the
involuntary deprivation.
7.17 There is yet another aspect of the
matter. The development agency/organization/colonizer
22 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
or 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 and not the landowner.
Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the
development cost incurred or to be incurred for
providing common facilities is also required to be
borne by the developer.
7.18 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
denied of an adequate and just compensation as well.
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."
6.3 From a careful perusal of the layout plan Ex.P-12/59, the
notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act and the location of the
acquired land, it is evident that the land comprised in sale deed Ex.PW4/B,
PW4/C and PW4/D has been acquired by the State in this acquisition. By
three different sale deeds executed on 31.01.2007, two different corporate
entities have purchased the land measuring 53 kanals and 4 marlas at the
rate of Rs.50,00,000/-per acre. The registered address, of both the
Companies, is the same.
6.4 On a careful reading of the judgment passed in Trishala Jain
and others (supra), it is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after
discussing the case law on the aspect of the percentage of deduction to be
applied by the Court, has itself observed in para 41 of the judgment that if
23 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
the comparable sale exemplars of reasonable size with respect to the
contemporaneous period have been produced, then, in that circumstance, it
would not be appropriate to apply any deduction or cut, on account of the
fact that some part of the land shall be utilized for carving out drains,
roads, passages, parks etc. or other development work.
6.5 In view of the aforesaid discussion, now, the Bench
proceeds to examine whether the sale deed produced by the landowners i.e
Ex.PW4/B, PW4/C and PW4/D are comparable sale exemplars of the
contemporaneous period. The Supreme Court in Shaji Kuriakose And
Anr vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 650 has laid down
five tests to arrive at a fair conclusion. The Court now endeavours to
apply the five stage tests prescribed by the Supreme Court in Shaji
Kuriakose' case (supra) to the present case. The sale exemplar PW4/B is
with respect to 1 acre, 3 kanals and 17 marlas of land executed on
03.01.2007. The HSIIDC has not led any evidence to prove that the
aforesaid sale transaction is not genuine. Thus, the first test is clear. The
second test laid down by the Supreme Court is that the sale deed must
have been executed at the time approximate to the date of issuance of
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The sale deed, in the present
case, is dated 03.01.2007 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the
1894 Act was issued on 15.12.2008. Thus, the sale deed is approximately
2 years prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
The third test prescribed by the Court is that the land covered by the sale
must be in the vicinity of the acquired land. It has already been observed
that the land covered under the sale exemplars is a part of the acquired
24 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
land. The fourth test is to ensure that the land covered by the sale
exemplar is similar to the acquired land. In the present case, since the
land in the sale deed is itself a part of the acquired land, therefore, it is
fundamentally similar. The fifth test is that the size of the plot of land
covered by the sale exemplars should be comparable to the land acquired.
In the present case, if we cumulatively take into consideration the land in
Ex.PW4/B, PW4/C and PW4/D, a total land measuring 53 kanals and 4
marlas has been purchased at the rate of Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. The
land comes to 6 ½ acres, approximately. These sale instances prove that
the parcels of land purchased through the sale deeds are of a sufficient and
comparable size. Apart therefrom, the location of the parcel of land sold
through the sale deed Ex.PW4/E is also comparable being adjacent to the
acquired land. More than 6 ½ acres of land has been purchased at the rate
of Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is safe
to conclude that the market value of the acquired land in January, 2007
was somewhere around Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. As regards the other sale
exemplars produced by the landowners, it is evident from the tabulated
information compiled that the land covered by sale exemplars Ex.PW4/F,
PW4/G, PW4/H, PW4/I, PW4/J, PW4/K, PW4/L, PW4/N, PW4/M is with
respect to the land located in village Kot. Once the sale exemplars of the
same village in which the land is acquired are available, it is not
considered appropriate to rely upon the sale instances of a different
village. Further, Ex.P12/6 to Ex.P12/58 are with respect to allotment of
developed industrial plots located in a developed area. Hence, it will not
be appropriate to rely upon these sale instances, particularly when the
25 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
other sale instances of undeveloped parcels of land with respect to the
acquired land are available. There are two more sale instances,
Ex.PW4/M and PW4/O which are with respect to small plots of land,
located in village Billah. Hence, it is not considered appropriate to rely
upon the aforesaid sale instances.
Issue No.2
6.6 Now, let us analyze the second issue i.e whether the Court
must include the assumed increase in the price of the acquired land for the
time gap between the relevant dates and if the answer is in affirmative,
then, what should be the appropriate percentage of hike? It may be noted
here that in Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769, the
Supreme Court held that the percentage of increase may vary between 3%
per year to 12% per year. In the present case, it is evident that there was
no increase from January, 2007 to June, 2007 i.e for a period of 6 months.
The sale instances Ex.PW4/B, PW4/C, PW4/D are with respect to sale
deeds executed in January, 2007 whereas sale deed Ex.PW4/E is of June,
2007. Moreover, the landowners have not produced any evidence to prove
that the market value of the land had exponentially increased during the
intervening period i.e from June 2007 to December, 2008. However, the
court cannot overlook the fact that the HSIIDC had already acquired the
land for developing industrial area in the year 1992 and therefore, this part
of the land cannot be treated as land for agricultural purposes only.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, it is considered appropriate to grant an
increase at the rate of 6% for a period of 1 ½ year. Hence, the increase
comes to 9%. while increasing the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by 9%, the
26 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
amount comes to Rs.54,50,000/- per acre.
6.7 It is noted here that the State has produced only one sale
deed i.e Ex.R1 with respect to a plot measuring 10 marlas only. On a
careful reading of the aforesaid sale deed, it is evident that the possession,
of the property sold was already with the vendee and therefore, it cannot
be considered to be a sale deed which was entered with free will. If the
purchaser is already in possession, one cannot expect to get the true
market value. Furthermore, the aforesaid parcel of land is of a very small
size when compared with the acquired land.
6.8 It is noted here that the land owners have also produced
certain awards passed by the LAC while acquiring different parcels of
land. However, neither the learned counsel representing the parties have
referred to the aforesaid awards nor those awards are found relevant,
particularly when the superior evidence in the form of sale instances of the
acquired land, itself, are available.
6.9 There is another award passed by the Reference Court
dated 15.05.2018 assessing the same market value. In this case, the
Reference Court disposed of the matter in terms of the first award dated
31.01.2017.
7.. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the
landowners shall be entitled to the market value of the acquired land at the
rate of Rs.54,50,000/- per acre, alongwith all the statutory benefits
available under the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas, the
appeals/writs filed by the HSIIDC stand dismissed.
27 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
24.11.2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
LIST OF CASES (BUNCH) DECIDED ON 24.11.2021
Sr. No. Case No. Party Name
1 RFA-4676-2017 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
. 0(MAIN CASE) INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (HSIIDC) V/S DHANI RAM
AND OTHERS
2. RFA-2779-2017 KALATTAR SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
3. RFA-2780-2017 SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
4. RFA-2781-2017 AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
5. RFA-2782-2017 SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
6. RFA-2783-2017 GIAN SNGH (DECEASED) THRU HIS LR V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
7. RFA-2784-2017 JARNAIL SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS.
8. RFA-2785-2017 JAGTAR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS.
9. RFA-2786-2017 NIRMAL KUMARI V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS.
10. RFA-2961-2017 GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
11. RFA-2966-2017 MAHINDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS LRS & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
OTHERS
12. RFA-3149-2017 MAHINDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
13. RFA-3150-2017 BALJINDER SINGH V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS.
14. RFA-3151-2017 DALIP KAUR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
15. RFA-3152-2017 AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
28 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
16. RFA-3480-2017 GURO V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
17. RFA-3481-2017 HARMAN SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
18. RFA-3482-2017 JASBIR SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER
19. RFA-3483-2017 BHAJAN SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
20. RFA-3484-2017 RANJIT SINGH & ANOTHER V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
21. RFA-3485-2017 BHAU VIRENDER SINGH V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
22. RFA-3486-2017 JAGDEEP SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
23. RFA-3487-2017 NANU KHAN AND ANOTHER. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
24. RFA-3488-2017 SMT. SHANTI RANI AND OTHERS. V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
25. RFA-3489-2017 KRISHNA DEVI V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
26. RFA-3490-2017 RAVI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
27. RFA-3491-2017 JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
28. RFA-3492-2017 PAHAL SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
29. RFA-3493-2017 JITENDER SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
30. RFA-3673-2017 KAMLA DEVI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
31. RFA-3675-2017 GHANSHAM & ANOTHER V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & ANOTHER
32. RFA-3676-2017 PARDEEP SINGH CHANDEL V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
33. RFA-3678-2017 CHARAN KAUR V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
34. RFA-3679-2017 RATTAN SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
35. RFA-3680-2017 NARESH SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
36. RFA-3681-2017 GURDEEP SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
& ANOTHER
37. RFA-3682-2017 M/S CHINAR CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZER
ALIPUR V/S STATE OF
29 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
HARYANA & ANOTHER
38. RFA-3683-2017 SHRADHA SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
39. RFA-3684-2017 NARINDER SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
40. RFA-3685-2017 TULINDER SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
& ANOTHER
41. RFA-3686-2017 KARNAIL SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
& ANOTHER
42. RFA-3857-2017 TEJ RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER
43. RFA-3858-2017 BALJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
44. RFA-3859-2017 SATISH KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
45. RFA-3860-2017 DHARAMPAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
46. RFA-4045-2017 M/S P P FOODS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
ETC
47. RFA-4526-2017 RAKSHA DEVI AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
48. RFA-4576-2017 BANWARI LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
49. RFA-4577-2017 RAJ PAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS
50. RFA-4578-2017 SALOCHNA DEVI AND ANOTHER V/S
STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER
51. RFA-4579-2017 SHIV NANDAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
52. RFA-4580-2017 SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
53. RFA-4581-2017 AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS
54. RFA-4582-2017 SMT. MANPREET KAUR & ANOTHER V/S
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
55. RFA-4583-2017 SHEELA DEVI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
56. RFA-4584-2017 BACHITTAR SINGH OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS
57. RFA-4585-2017 BHUPINDER SINGH V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS
58. RFA-4624-2017 RAMESHWAR DASS AND OTHERS. V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
30 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
59. RFA-4670-2017 HSIIDC V/S BALJINDER SINGH AND
OTHERS
60. RFA-4672-2017 HSIIDC V/S MANINDER KUMAR AND
OTHERS
61. RFA-4673-2017 HSIIDC V/S SATISH KUMAR & OTHERS
62. RFA-4674-2017 HSIIDC V/S SALAMDEEN & OTHERS
63. RFA-4683-2017 HSIIDC V/S KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS
64. RFA-4684-2017 HSIIDC V/S BHUPINDER SINGH AND
OTHERS
65. RFA-4685-2017 HSIIDC V/S PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS
66. RFA-4688-2017 HSIIDC V/S NANU KHAN AND OTHERS
67. RFA-4689-2017 HSIIDC V/S SUCHA SINGH AND OTHERS
68. RFA-4690-2017 HSIIDC V/S BALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
69. RFA-4691-2017 HSIIDC V/S HARNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
70. RFA-4692-2017 HSIIDC V/S AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS
71. RFA-4693-2017 HSIIDC V/S NARESH SINGH AND OTHERS
72. RFA-4694-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAVI KHANNA AND OTHERS
73. RFA-4695-2017 HSIIDC V/S POPA CHANDEL AND OTHERS
74. RFA-4697-2017 HSIIDC V/S SALOCHNA DEVI AND OTHERS
75. RFA-4698-2017 HSIIDC V/S GURDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
76. RFA-4699-2017 HSIIDC V/S GURDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
77. RFA-4702-2017 HSIIDC V/S SHASHI BALA AND OTHERS
78. XOBJR-80-CI- HSIIDC V/S SHASHI BALA AND OTHERS
79. RFA-4713-2017 HSIIDC V/S RANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
80. RFA-4714-2017 HSIIDC V/S MAHINDER SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS
81. RFA-4715-2017 HSIIDC V/S GURO AND OTHERS
82. RFA-4716-2017 HSIIDC V/S BALJINDER SINGH & OTHERS
83. RFA-4717-2017 HSIIDC V/S SURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS
84. RFA-4718-2017 HSIIDC V/S DALIP KAUR AND OTHERS
85. RFA-4719-2017 HSIIDC V/S AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS
86. RFA-4720-2017 HSIIDC V/S NIRMAL KUMARI AND OTHERS
87. RFA-4721-2017 HSIIDC V/S PAHAL SINGH AND OTHERS
88. RFA-4722-2017 HSIIDC V/S SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
89. RFA-4723-2017 HSIIDC V/S JAGTAR SINGH & OTHERS
90. RFA-4724-2017 HSIIDC V/S SHUGAN CHAND & OTHERS
91. RFA-4725-2017 HSIIDC V/S JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS
92. RFA-4728-2017 HSIIDC V/S GURCHARAN SINGH AND
OTHERS
93. RFA-4729-2017 HSIIDC V/S AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS
94. RFA-4732-2017 HSIIDC V/S JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS
31 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
95. RFA-4733-2017 HSIIDC V/S BACHITTAR SINGH AND
OTHERS
96. RFA-4734-2017 HSIIDC V/S BHAU VARINDER SINGH AND
OTHERS
97. RFA-4735-2017 HSIIDC V/S BHAU VARINDER SINGH AND
OTHERS
98. RFA-4736-2017 HSIIDC V/S DHEERAJ GARG AND OTHERS
99. RFA-4737-2017 HSIIDC V/S KHALIL KHAN AND OTHERS
100. RFA-4738-2017 HSIIDC V/S M/S P.P. FOODS PVT. LTD. AND
OTHERS
101. RFA-4739-2017 HSIIDC V/S KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
102. RFA-4741-2017 HSIIDC V/S TEJ PAL AND OTHERS
103. RFA-4742-2017 HSIIDC V/S IMRAN AND OTHERS
104. RFA-4743-2017 HSIIDC V/S HARDEV SINGH AND OTHERS
105. RFA-4744-2017 HSIIDC V/S BANWARI LAL AND OTHERS
106. RFA-4745-2017 HSIIDC V/S GURNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
107. RFA-4746-2017 HSIIDC V/S ANURAG GUPTA AND OTHERS
108. RFA-4747-2017 HSIIDC V/S PARDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
109. RFA-4748-2017 HSIIDC V/S SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
110. RFA-4749-2017 HSIIDC V/S SANT RAM AND OTHERS
111. RFA-4752-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAKSHA DEVI AND OTHERS
112. RFA-4753-2017 HSIIDC V/S KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS
113. RFA-4754-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
114. RFA-4755-2017 HSIIDC V/S JAGDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
115. RFA-4756-2017 HSIIDC V/S SMT. REETA RANI AND OTHERS
116. XOBJR-3-2021 HSIIDC V/S REETA RANI AND OTHERS
117. RFA-4757-2017 HSIIDC V/S TEJ RAM AND OTHERS
118. RFA-4758-2017 HSIIDC V/S JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
119. RFA-4771-2017 HSIIDC V/S KRISHAN AGGARWAL AND
OTHERS
120. RFA-4772-2017 HSIIDC V/S KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS
121. RFA-4773-2017 HSIIDC V/S SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
122. RFA-4774-2017 HSIIDC V/S GIAN SINGH DECEASED THR LR
AND OTHERS
123. RFA-4775-2017 HSIIDC V/S SURINDER KUMAR AND
OTHERS
124. RFA-4776-2017 HSIIDC V/S DHARMPAL AND OTHERS
125. RFA-4777-2017 HSIIDC V/S JASPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
126. RFA-4778-2017 HSIIDC V/S RATTAN SINGH AND OTHERS
127. RFA-4779-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAVI AND OTHERS
128. RFA-4780-2017 HSIIDC V/S TULINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
32 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
129. RFA-4781-2017 HSIIDC V/S JATINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
130. RFA-4825-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAJ PAL AND OTHERS
131. RFA-4826-2017 HSIIDC V/S SMT. SHEELA DEVI AND
OTHERS
132. RFA-4828-2017 HSIIDC V/S KULWANT KAUR AND OTHERS
133. RFA-4830-2017 HSIIDC V/S BABU RAM AND OTHERS
134. RFA-4831-2017 HSIIDC V/S KALATTAR SINGH AND OTHERS
135. RFA-4832-2017 HSIIDC V/S SHIV NANDAN AND OTHERS
136. RFA-4833-2017 HSIIDC V/S GARJA SINGH AND OTHERS
137. RFA-4834-2017 HSIIDC V/S SMT. SHANTI RANI AND
OTHERS
138. RFA-4835-2017 HSIIDC V/S GHANSHAM & OTHERS
139. RFA-4836-2017 HSIIDC V/S ALI HASAN AND OTHERS
140. XOBJR-31-2020 HARYANA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD V/S ALI HASAN AND
OTHERS
141. RFA-4837-2017 HSIIDC V/S MAHINDER SINGH (DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRS & OTHERS
142. RFA-4838-2017 HSIIDC V/S SMT. RAJ DULARI AND OTHERS
143. RFA-4841-2017 HSIIDC V/S NIRMALA DEVI AND OTHERS
144. RFA-4842-2017 HSIIDC V/S SURAT RAM AND OTHERS
145. RFA-4853-2017 HSIIDC V/S SHIV RAM AND OTHERS
146. RFA-4854-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAMESHWAR DASS AND
OTHERS
147. RFA-4898-2017 HSIIDC V/S CHARAN KAUR AND OTHERS
148. RFA-4912-2017 HSIIDC V/S NAZIR KHAN (DECEASED) THRU
LRS AND OTHERS
149. RFA-5509-2017 SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
150. RFA-87-2018 GARJA SINGH (SINCE DECEASED ) THRU
HIS LRS AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS.
151. RFA-1427-2018 SURJIT KAUR AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
152. RFA-3049-2018 KUNAL ATTRI AND ANOTHER V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS
153. RFA-4031-2017 PITAMBER PARSHOTAM THR LR V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & OTHERS
154. RFA-4596-2018 KRISHAN AGGARWAL V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER
155. RFA-4604-2018 RAVI SHARMA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
33 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
156. RFA-5140-2018 DHANI RAM AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER
157. RFA-5141-2018 SHIV RAM AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER
158. RFA-4829-2017 HSIIDC V/S SMT. DEVKI DEVI AND OTHERS
159. RFA-4751-2017 HSIIDC V/S ISHWAR DAYAL AND OTHERS
160. RFA-4827-2017 HSIIDC V/S SANJEEV KUMAR AND OTHERS
161. RFA-4671-2017 HSIIDC V/S HARE RAM AND OTHERS
162. RFA-4700-2017 HSIIDC V/S BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS
163. RFA-4855-2017 HSIIDC V/S PITAMBER PURSHOTAM
(DECEASED) THR LR AND OTHERS
164. RFA-4675-2017 HSIIDC V/S SAWRAJ SINGH & OTHERS
165. RFA-4687-2017 HSIIDC V/S RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
166. RFA-4686-2017 HSIIDC V/S OM PARKASH AND OTHERS
167. RFA-4696-2017 HSIIDC V/S NARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
168. RFA-4750-2017 HSIIDC V/S SHRADHA SINGH AND OTHERS
169. RFA-4701-2017 HSIIDC V/S BHAJAN SINGH AND OTHERS
170. RFA-4824-2017 HSIIDC V/S SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
171. RFA-4840-2017 HSIIDC V/S SURINDER SINGH & OTHERS
172. RFA-4844-2017 HSIIDC V/S SMT. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS
173. RFA-4856-2017 HSIIDC V/S DAYA RANI & OTHERS
174. XOBJR-32-2020 HARYANA STATE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD V/S DAYA RANI AND
OTHERS
175. RFA-4852-2017 HSIIDC V/S SUNITA SINGLA & OTHERS
176. RFA-4897-2017 HSIIDC V/S USHA JAIN & OTHERS
177. RFA-4896-2017 HSIIDC V/S M/S CHINAR CHEMICALS &
FERTILIZER INDUSTRY ALIPUR OTHERS
178. RFA-4611-2018 SMT. RAJ DULARI DECEASED THR HER LRS
AND OTHERS V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & OTHERS
179. RFA-231-2018 GURNAM SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
& OTHERS
180. RFA-228-2018 SANJEEV KUMAR & ANOTHER V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & OTHERS
181. RFA-232-2018 POPA CHANDEL V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
182. RFA-225-2018 SHUGAN CHAND V/S STATE OF HARYANA
& OTHERS
183. RFA-229-2018 JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & OTHERS
184. RFA-230-2018 ANURAG GUPTA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
& OTHERS
34 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
185. RFA-226-2018 SUNITA SINGLA V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
OTHERS
186. RFA-227-2018 USHA JAIN & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
187. RFA-141-2018 RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE
OF HARYANA & OTHERS
188. RFA-3674-2017 SMT. DEVKI DEVI (DECEASED) THROUGH
LRS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
189. RFA-3677-2017 SALAMDEEN (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS
LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
190. RFA-4628-2017 IMRAN & OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
191. RFA-89-2018 HARDEV SINGH & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & ANOTHER
192. RFA-4620-2017 KHALIL KHAN AND ANOTHER. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
193. RFA-4622-2017 BHAU VIRENDER SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S
STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER.
194. RFA-4627-2017 NAZIR KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS & OTHERS
V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
195. RFA-4626-2017 GURDEEP SINGH & ANOTHER V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & ANOTHER
196. RFA-1278-2018 HARBANS KAUR @ HARVINDER KAUR AND
ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
197. RFA-4621-2017 DHEERAJ GARG & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & ANOTHER
198. RFA-4617-2017 SANT RAM & OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & ANOTHER
199. RFA-4625-2017 BALJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
OTHERS.
200. RFA-4618-2017 PRITAM SINGH AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
201. RFA-4619-2017 KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER. V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
202. RFA-4623-2017 RAMESH KUMAR AND OTHERS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
203. RFA-5454-2017 SURAT RAM AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
204. RFA-4601-2018 RAMESH KUMAR SAINI V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
35 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
205. RFA-4031-2018 SMT. BIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS. V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER.
206. RFA-4843-2017 HSIIDC V/S HARPREET PAL KAUR AND
OTHERS
207. RFA-5119-2018 DHANPAT PROPERTIES PVT LTD V/S STATE
OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
208. RFA-5125-2018 SONALI BUILDCON PVT LTD V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ANOTHER
209. RFA-5206-2018 RAVI SHARMA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND ANOTHER
210. RFA-2250-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED V/S DHANPAT
PROPERTIES PVT LTD AND OTHERS
211. RFA-2251-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED V/S SONALI
BUILDCON PVT LTD AND OTHERS
212. RFA-2454-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S SMT.
GAINDI DEVI THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
213. RFA-2455-2019 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION V/S
RAMESH KUMAR SAINI AND OTHERS
214. RFA-5198-2017 SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE
OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR
AND OTHERS
215. RFA-5290-2017 BALDEV SINGH (D) THR LRS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA & ANOTHER
216. RFA-362-2019 BIMLA DEVI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER
217. RFA-370-2019 HSIIDC V/S LILU RAM AND OTHERS
218. RFA-371-2019 HSIIDC V/S AMRIK SINGH AND OTHERS
219. RFA-895-2019 BANWARI LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS
220. RFA-1998-2018 BALWINDER SINGH V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
221. RFA-8-2020 KHALIL DECEASED REPRESENTED
THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS
V/S HARYANA WAKF BOARD AND
ANOTHER
222. RFA-3880-2019 HARYANA WAKF BOARD, AMBALA V/S
KHALIL NOW DECEASED THROUGH LRS
AND OTHERS
223. RFA-40-2020 JOTI RAM AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
224. RFA-5046-2018 LATE SMT GAINDI DEVI THR HER LR V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
36 of 37
RFA-4676-2017
225. CWP-1805-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED V/S HEMANT
GARG AND ANOTHER
226. CWP-1806-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. V/S GURNEK SINGH
(DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND
OTHERS
227. CWP-1750-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD V/S GIAN SINGH AND
OTHERS
228. CWP-17005- DEEPAK SHARMA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
2021 AND OTHERS
229. CWP-1268-2021 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. V/S HARYANA WAKF
BOARD AND ANOTHER
230. CWP-19302- HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
2019 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (HSIIDC) V/S DEEPAK
SHARMA AND OTHERS
231. RFA-13569-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (HSIIDC) V/S NATHI RAM
AND OTHERS
232. RFA-13570-2018 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (HSIIDC) V/S SMT. BIMLA
DEVI AND OTHERS
233. RFA-28-2020 BACHITAR SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S THE
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
234. RFA-900-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (HSIIDC) V/S KARNAIL
SINGH AND OTHERS
24.11.2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
37 of 37
