Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 16 March, 2022
RFA No.1537 of 2016(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1537 of 2016(O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.03.2022
Smt. Chander (since deceased) through her legal heirs and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Gurpreet Randhawa, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate
Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate
Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate
Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate
Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate
Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate
Mr. M.S. Khillan, Advocate
Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate
Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate
Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate
Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate
Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate
for the landowners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana
and Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
1 of 36
ANIL KSHETARPAL (J).
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This batch of Appeals (details whereof are at the foot of the
judgment) filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act"), assail the correctness of the
various awards passed by the Reference Courts (hereinafter referred to as
'RC') on 21.01.2014, 05.07.2014, 24.02.2015, 15.12.2015 and 31.05.2017
passed while assessing the market value of the acquired land located in
villages Kheri Saad, Pehrawar, Garhi Bohar and Kanheli. The Notification
under Section 4 and 6 are the same. Although, separate awards were passed
by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") but the
amount assessed is identical. The RC has, also assessed more or less a
similar amount of market value. The learned counsel representing the parties
are ad idem that these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. FACTS
2.1 In order to develop Sector 26, Rohtak, (the residential and the
institutional Sector), the State of Haryana, on 15.12.2006, issued a
Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, with respect to the land
measuring 401.52 acres, whereas, ultimately only 340.26 acres of land was
acquired.
2.2 The relevant particulars of the acquisition are compiled in a
tabulated form as under:-
2 of 36
Sr. Title Details
No.
1. Date of Notification under Section 4 15.12.2006
of the 1894 Act and area of the land. Area-96.83 acres (Vill Kheri
Saad).
Area-16.86 acres (Vill. Garhi
Bohar).
Area-224.57 acres (Vill.
Pehrawar).
Area-2 acres, village Kanheli).
2. Date of Notification under Section 6 14.12.2007,
of the 1894 Act
3. Purpose of Acquisition Development of Sector 26 for
residential/transport/commercial
purposes, recreational and
communication purposes.
4. Location of the land, village, Tehsil 1.Village Kheri Sadh,
and District. 2. Garhi Bohar
3. Pehrawar, (Tehsil and
District Rohtak, Haryana.
4. Kanheli.
5. Number and date of the Award of Award Nos.20 (Vill. Kanheli,
the Land Acquisition Collector. Area 1.93 Acres), 21 (Vill.
Garhi Bohar, Area 16.86 acres),
22 (Vill. Pehrawar, Area 224.57
acres) and 23 (vill. Kheri Sadh,
area 96.83 acres), dated
03.07.2009.
6. Amount assessed by the LAC. Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.
7. Amount assessed by the RC. Rs.22,75,000/- per acre (Vill.
Kheri Sadh vide award dated
15.12.2015.
Rs.24,86,998.10/- per acre
(Vill. Garhi Bohar vide award
dated 21.01.2014.
Rs.24,86,998.10/- per acre (Vill.
Kanheli vide award dated
24.02.2015).
Dismissed (Vill. Pehrawar vide
award dated 05.07.2014).
Rs.21,45,000/- per acre. (Vill.
Pehrawar vide award dated
31.05.2017).
3 of 36
8. Deduction/cut applied by the RC, if 24% in Vill Kheri Saad and
any. 68%(58+10%(additional) in
Vill Garhi Bohar)
2.3 The landowners claim that the RC has erred in assessing the
market value. They claim that the acquired land is situated on National
Highway No.10, opposite to a Tourist Complex and Tilyar Lake, Rohtak. It
is adjacent to various educational institutions namely, Shri Baba Mast Nath
College of Engineering, Eye Hospital, Ayurvedic College, College of
Pharmacy, College of Physiotherapy, Shri Baba Mast Nath Residential
Public School, Indus Public School, D.G.V. Public School and D.G.V.
Centenary Public School, Rohtak, among other educational institutions. It is
also claimed that the Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd., Suncity Housing Project and Industrial Model Township, Rohtak, are
located very near to the acquired land and therefore, the market value of the
land is not less than Rs.5 crores per acre.
2.4 Per contra, the State has submitted that the assessment of the
market value by the Land Acquisition Collector is correct and needs no
interference.
2.5 It may be noted here that the State of Haryana has not filed any
appeal, assailing the correctness of the various judgments passed by the
Reference Court.
3. EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES
3.1 ORAL EVIDENCE
4 of 36
(I) IN THE CASES ARISING FROM THE ACQUIRED LAND
LOCATED IN VILLAGE KHERI SAAD
3.1.1 In order to prove their case, the land owners have examined
PW1 Khazan Singh, PW2 Satbir Singh and PW3 Abhishek Singh.
3.1.2 On the other hand, the State of Haryana has examined RW1
Suresh Kumar, Patwari.
(II) IN THE CASES ARISING FROM THE ACQUIRED LAND
LOCATED IN VILLAGE GARHI BOHAR
3.1.3 In order to prove the case, the landowners have
examined Ram Bhagat as PW1.
3.1.4 Per contra, the State of Haryana has examined Ram
Niwas, Kanungo RW1.
(III) IN THE CASES ARISING FROM THE ACQUIRED LAND
LOCATED IN VILLAGE PEHRAWAR
3.1.5 There are two different awards (05.07.2014 and 31.05.2017)
passed by the RC while assessing the market value of the acquired land.
3.1.6 In the case decided by award dated 05.07.2014, the landowners
have examined the following witnesses:-
Sr.No. Witnesses
1. PW1 Subhash Chander
2. PW2 Roshan Lal
3. PW3 Ishwar
5 of 36
4 PW4 Shri Bhagwan
5 PW5 Ram Kumar
6 PW6 Kali Ram
7 PW7 Shiv Charan
8 PW8, Shiv Kumar
9 PW9 Sada Ram
10 PW10 Ram Sanehi
3.1.7 On the other hand, the State of Haryana has examined RW1
Ram Niwas, Kanungo.
3.1.8 In the cases arising from award dated 31.05.2017, the
landowners examined the following witnesses:-
Sr.No. Witnesses
1. PW2-Subhash Chander
2 PW2 Roshan Lal
3 PW3 Ishwar
4 PW4 Shri Bhagwan
5 PW5 Ram Kumar
6 PW6 Kali Ram
7 PW7 Shiv Charan
8 PW8 Shiv Kumar
9 PW9 Sada Ram
10 PW10 Ram Sanehi
6 of 36
3.1.9 On the other hand, the State of Haryana examined Ram Niwas
Kanungo as DW1.
(IV) IN THE CASES ARISING FROM THE ACQUIRED LAND
LOCATED IN VILLAGE KANHELI
3.1.10 In order to prove the case, the landowners have examined
Ajit Singh as PW1, on the other hand, the State of Haryana examined Ram
Niwas Kanungo as RW1.
3.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
(I) IN VILLAGE KHERI SAAD
3.2.1 The landowners have produced the following documentary
evidence apart from the sale deeds (A tabulated compilation of which is
produced in para 3.3):-
Sr.No. Exhibit Document
1 Ex.P10 Judgment dated 21.01.2014 passed by the Court of Shri
Jagjit Singh, ADJ, Rohtak in case titled Suraj Bhan vs.
State of Haryana and another.
2 Ex.P11 Extracts of minutes of meeting of Board of Directors of
M/s Uddar Trees Growing Pvt. Ltd. Company, dated
08.05.2014.
3.2.2 Per contra, the State of Haryana has produced the following
documents apart from the sale deed (a tabulated compilation of which is
given in para 3.3):-
Sr.No. Exhibit Documents
1 Ex.R1 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
2 Ex.R2 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
7 of 36
3 Ex.R3 Award No.23, dated 03.07.2009
4 Ex.R4 Minutes of the Meeting of Divisional Level Committee
held under the Chairmanship of Commisioner, Rohtak.
5 Ex.R5 Outees Scheme
6 Ex.R10 Aks-Shizra.
(II) IN VILLAGE GARHI BOHAR
3.2.3 The landowners have produced the following documentary
evidence apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is
produced in para 3.3:-
Ex.PW1/A Affidavit of Ram Bhagat.
3.2.4. Per contra, the State of Haryana has produced the following
documents apart from the sale deed, a tabulated compilation of which is
given in para 3.3:-
Sr.No. Exhibit Documents
1 Ex.RW1/A Affidavit of Ram Niwas Kanungo, dated
15.12.2006.
2 Ex.R1 Copy of Notification U/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894
3 Ex.R2 Copy of Notification U/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 14.12.2006.
4 Ex.R3 Copy of Award No.21, dated 03.07.2009 by
the LAC
5 Ex.R4 Copy of RR Policy
6 Ex.R5 Copy of Collector Rate
8 of 36
7 Ex.R13 Copy of Aks-sijra.
(III) IN VILLAGE PEHRAWAR
3.2.5 The landowners have produced the following documentary
evidence apart from the sale deeds (a tabulated compilation of which is
produced in para 3.3:-
Sr.No. Exhibit Document
Ex.P1 Draft Development Plan
Ex.P2 Copy of Aks-sijra (layout plan prepared by the
Revenue Authorities)
Ex.P3 Copy of Aks-sijra
Ex.P4 Copy of Aks-sijra
Ex.P5 Copy of Aks-sijra
Ex.P6 Copy of Aks-sijra
Ex.P15 Copy of notice under Section 9
Ex.P16 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P17 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P18 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P19 Copy of Mutation No.3389
Ex.P20 Copy of notice No.5590 dated 29.06.2009
Ex.P21 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P22 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P23 Copy of notice dated 25.03.2009
Ex.P24 Copy of notice dated 29.06.2009
Ex.P25 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
9 of 36
Ex.P26 Copy of mutation No.3426
Ex.P27 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P28 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004
Ex.P29 Copy of muttion No.3389
Ex.P30 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-2004.
Ex.P31 Copy of mutation No.3393.
Ex.P32 Will dated 23.03.2006 executed by Kheema
Ex.P33 Copy of judgment dated 21.01.2014
3.2.6 Per contra, the State of Haryana has produced the following
documents apart from the sale deed (a tabulated compilation of which is
given in para 3.3:-
Sr.No. Exhibit Document
1 Ex.R1 Copy of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act dated 15.12.2006
2 Ex.R2 Copy of notification under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act dated 14.12.2007
3 Ex.R3 Copy of Collector rate
4 Ex.R4 Copy of the Award No.22 dt. 03.07.2009
5 Ex.R5 Copy of R.R.Policy
6 Ex.R17 Copy of Aks-sijra
(IV) IN VILLAGE KANHELI
3.2.7 The landowners have produced the following documentary
evidence apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation of which is
produced in para 3.3:-
10 of 36
Sr.No. Exhibits Documents
1. Ex.P1 Copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-2008
2. Ex.P9 Copy of notice under Section 9 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 25.03.2009.
3. Ex.P10 Copy of judgment dated 21.01.2014
3.2.8 Per contra, the State of Haryana has produced the following
documents apart from the sale deed, a tabulated compilation of which is
given in para 3.3:-
Sr.No. Exhibits Documents
1 Ex.R1 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, dated 15.12.2006
2. Ex.R2 Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, dated 14.12.2007.
3. Ex.R3 Minutes of the Divisional Level Committee held on
29.02.2008.
4. Ex.R4 Oustees Scheme
5. Ex.R5 Award No.20, dated 03.07.2009
6. Ex.R8 Aks-shijra
3.3 For the sake of brevity, a consolidated compilation of the sale
deed, along with the relevant information, produced by the respective parties
in the cases arising from the land located in villages, namely, Kheri Saad,
Pehrawar, Garhi Bohar and Kanheli, is tabulated as under:-
Village Kheri Sadh
Sr. Exhibit Sale Sale Deed Description Area sold Rate per acre/ Status/ Location as
No. No. Deed Date of Land i.e. Total Sale to acquired land
No. Rectangle Consideration
& Killa No.
1 P-1 1785 21.12.2005 101// 7 Kanal Rs.31,88,790/- Acquired
1/1 6 Marla /29,09,771/-
2 P-2 1786 21.12.2005 101// 15 Kanal Rs.31,88,790/- Acquired
3 1 Marla /59,98,911/-
11 of 36
3 P-3 1793 22.12.2005 75// 14 Kanal Rs.31,88,790/- Acquired
9 5 Marla /56,80,033/-
4 P-4 1794 22.12.2005 75// 14 Kanal Rs.31,88,790/- Acquired
21/2 18 Marla /59,39,121/-
101//
5 P-5 2457 3.3.2006 71// 32 Kanal Rs.23,12,500/- Partly Acquired as
1 /92,50,000/- the land comprised
2 in 71//
3 1 (8-0)
4 2 (7-16) was
acquired
6 P-6 2568 17.3.2006 72// 7 Kanal Rs.23,76,000/- Acquired
8/2 8 Marla /21,97,800/-
7 P-7 2637 27.3.2006 43// 11 Kanal Rs.23,76,000/- Acquired
15 12 Marla /34,45,200/-
44//
72//
8 P-8 238 12.5.2006 65// 14 Marla Rs.46,45,714/-
12 /4,06,500/-
(wrongly mentioned
in award as Rs.
4,06,000/-)
9 P-9 145 20.4.2007 83// 21 Kanal Rs.26,54,028/-
7/2/2/2 2 Marla /70,00,000/-
8/2/2
10 R-6 509 16.6.2006 126// 10 Marla Rs.14,56,000/-
1/3/2 /91,000/-
11 R-7 780 10.7.2006 133/239 2 Marla Rs.12,00,000/-
/15,000/-
12 R-8 2146 15.12.2006 18// 2 Kanal Rs.5,20,930/-
22/1 3 Marla /1,40,000/-
13 R-9 2121 11.12.2006 67// 1 Kanal Rs.14,56,000/-
15/2 /1,82,000/-
Village Garhi Bohar
Sr. Exhibi Sale Sale Deed Descri Area sold Rate per acre /total Status/ Location as
No. t No. Deed Date ption of Sale Consi- to acquired land
No. Land deration
i.e.
Rectan
gle &
Killa
No.
1 P-1 924 4.5.2006 343// 16 Kanal 8 Rs. 90,02,286/-
P-3 6/2 Marla /1,84,54,687/-
P-9 7/1
344//
12/2/2
12 of 36
2 P-2 925 4.5.2006 343// 9 Kanal Rs. 90,00,156/-
P-4 6/2 11.68 /1,07,82,188/-
P-10 7/1 Marla
344//
12/2/2
3 P-3 926 4.5.2006 343// 22 Kanal Rs. 89,99,934/-
P-5 6/2 19.32 /2,58,36,562/-
P-12 7/1 Marla
13 (wrongly
14 mentioned
15 in award
16 as 76
17 Kanal 7
18 Marla)
344//
12/2/2
4 P-4 927 4.5.2006 343// 6 Kanal Rs.90,01,240/-
P-6 6/2 1 Marla /68,07,188/-
P-7 7/1
344//
12/2/2
5 P-5 928 4.5.2006 343// 14 Kanal Rs. 89,99,482/-
P-7 6/2 10 Marla /1,63,11,562/-
P-8 7/1 (wrongly mentioned
13 in award as Rs.
14 1,38,71,250/-)
344//
12/2/2
6 R-6 13599 28.2.2006 361// 1 Kanal 16 Rs.2,11,111/- Acquired
25/1 Marla /47,500/-
7 R-7 14030 10.3.2006 362// 10 Kanal 2 Rs.18,45,545/-/ Acquired
6 Marla 23,30,000/-
8 R-8 902 4.5.2006 360// 1 Kanal 17 Rs.5,01,622/-/
19/1 Marla 1,16,000/-
9 R-9 1878 31.5.2006 344// 13 Kanal Rs.5,58,273/-/
10 18 Marla 9,70,000/-
344//
12/2/1
343//
10 R-10 2276 9.6.2006 344// 1 Kanal Rs.5,12,000-/
22/1 5 Marla 80,000/-
11 R-11 5825 5.10.2006 345// 1 Kanal Rs.5,00,513/-
19/2 19 Marla /1,22,000/-
12 R-12 6451 27.10.2006 361// 1 Kanal Rs.5,09,091/- Acquired
13 of 36
13/2 2 Marla /70,000/-
13. P-11 923 04.05.2006 343// 6 kanal Rs.97,02,757
P-2 6/2 7 Marla /77,01,563
344//
12/2/2
14. P-13 12020 20.01.2006 302// 19 Kanal Rs. 10481102/
P-8 18/3 1 Marla 2,49,58,125
314//
Village Pehrawar
1. P-14 11511 10.01.2006 13// 34K-11M 38,99,999/ Acquired
10/2 1,68,43,122
14//
2. R-6 10641 22.12.2005 20/1 10½M 14,62,857/ Acquired
96,000
3. R-7 10695 23.12.2005 20/10 10½M 10,66,666/ Acquired
70,000
4. R-8 3664 28.06.2005 12// 1K 2,36,000/ Acquired
7/2 29,500
8/1/2
5. R-9 13897 07.03.2006 20/1 695½ 10,89,086/ Acquired
Sq. Yards 1,56,500
6. R-10 12061 23.01.2006 12/1 1K 10,68,000/ Acquired
8/1/1 1,33,500
7. R-11 13743 03.03.2006 20/2 9M 10,22,222/ Acquired
57,500
8. R-12 13193 17.02.2006 20/1 12M 10,66,666/ Acquired
80,000
9. P-13 13894 07.03.2006 20/1 695½ 10,89,086/ Acquired
Sq. Yards 1,56,500
10. R-14 14866 30.03.2006 20/20 3K-6M 4,36,363/ Acquired
1,80,000
11. R-15 8048 15.12.2006 28// 7M 19,42,857/
20 85,000
12. R-16 4486 22.08.2006 39// 1K-16 7,11,111/
19 1,60,000
Village Kanheli
13 R-6 7790 06.12.2006 19// 1K-13M 518787/
13/2 107000
14. R-7 7667 04.12.2006 19// 3K-16M 450526/
13/2 214000
14 of 36
3.4 At this stage, it is appropriate to notice the meaning of various
words/phrases/expressions used while referring to the size of a unit of an
agricultural land:-
1 Rectangle = 5 X 5 = 25 Acre
(Rectangular shape)
1 Acre = 160 Marlas
(Rectangular shape)
8 Kanal = 1 Acre
1 Kanal = 20 Marlas
1 Acre = 4840 Sq. Yards
1 Marla = 30.25 Sq. Yards
1 Inch = 2.54 cm
1 Foot = 12 Inch
1 Sq. Feet = 12 X 12 = 144 Inch
1 Yard = 3 Feet
1 Sq. Yard = 9 Sq. Feet
100 Sq. Yards = 900 Sq. Feet
1 Kanal = 0.125 Acre
1 Marla = 0.00625001 Acre
'//' = Rectangle
'/' = Killa/acre/khasra number
4. ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSELS REPRESENTING
THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES
4.1 The learned counsels representing the landowners have
contended that the RC while passing the various awards has erred in
deducting 24%/45%/68% from the assessed base value of the acquired land.
They further contend that the court has failed to award escalation for the
period from the date of the sale instances relied upon and the date of
15 of 36
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.. They further contend that the
RC has also erred in assessing the market value of the land while taking
average price of the various sale exemplars.
4.2 Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State of
Haryana has contended that through the sale deed Ex.P1 to P7, the
builders/colonizers have purchased the various parcels of land and therefore,
the sale deeds cannot be relied upon. She further contends that the judgment
passed by the Reference Court is required to be upheld.
5. ISSUE WHICH ARISES FOR DETERMINATION
5.1 In the considered opinion of the court, the issue which arises for
consideration is:-
If the sale exemplars of the acquired land itself are
available, then whether it is appropriate for the court to
assess the market value by taking the average price of
the relevant sale deeds?
6. ANALYSIS OF THE VARIOUS AWARDS OF THE RC
(I) VILLAGE KHERI SADH
6.1 REASONS GIVEN BY THE RC
6.1.1 While deciding applications under Section 18 of the 1894 Act,
with respect to acquired land located in village Kheri Sadh, by award dated
15.12.2015, the RC recorded the following reasons:-
(1) In view of Section 25 of the 1894 Act, the sale deeds
No.509 and 780 produced by the State of Haryana being
of a lesser value than the amount awarded by the LAC
16 of 36
cannot be taken into consideration while assessing the
market value of the acquired land.
(2) The landowners have produced various sale deeds. The
sale deed No.145, dated 24.04.2007 is post the date of
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, whereas sale
deed No.238 dated 12.05.2006 is with respect to a very
small area.
(3) The sale deeds bearing No.1785, 1786, 1793, 1794, 2457,
2568 and 2637 are with respect to parcels of land located
in proximity to the acquired land and appears to be in a
more developed area. Thereafter, the RC calculated the
average sale price of the aforesaid sale deeds and arrived
at a figure of Rs.27,65,000/- per acre. Keeping in view
the gap period, the Reference Court granted escalation @
9% per annum for a period of 11 months to arrive at a
figure of Rs.29,93,000/-. Thereafter, the court applied a
development deduction of 24% and assessed the market
value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.22,75,000/-
per acre.
6.2 ANALYSIS OF THE AFORESAID REASONS
6.2.1 In the opinion of the court, the Reference Court committed
three errors.
6.2.2 First of all, Section 25 of the 1894 Act does not debar the Court
from taking into consideration the sale instances produced by any of the
17 of 36
party which reflects the price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC.
Section 25 only prohibits the court from awarding/assessing amount lower
than the amount assessed by the LAC. Section 25 of the 1894 is extracted as
under:-
"25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to
be lower than the amount awarded 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"
This matter is no longer res-integra (Please see Lal Chand vs.
Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769.)
6.2.3 The second reason given by the RC while calculating average
of the 7 sale instances committed an error because the landowners are
entitled to the highest price. Once there is a compulsory acquisition of the
land, the landowners are expected to get the best price.
6.2.4 Thirdly, the RC has also erred in applying a deduction of 24%
without realizing that the sale instances produced by the owners are of
undeveloped land. Sale deed No.2457, dated 03.06.2006, is with respect to a
substantial chunk of the acquired land measuring more than 4 acres. The
court has also overlooked that the sale deeds No.1785, 1786, 1793, 1794, all
dated 22.12.2005 are purchased by the same company i.e. Uddar Trees
Growing Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the sale instances No.2457, 2568 and 2637
have been purchased by Shubh Labh Buildwell Private Limited. Thus, it is
evident that Uddar Trees Growing Pvt. Ltd. purchased land @
Rs.31,88,790/- per acre, whereas Shubh Labh Buildwell Private Limited
purchased the land approximately @ Rs.23,75,700/- per acre.
18 of 36
6.2.5 In such circumstances, for the reasons which shall be discussed
in detail later on, the RC committed an error in applying deduction of 24%
after working out a price of Rs.29,93,000/-
(II) VILLAGE GARHI BOHAR
6.3 REASONS RECORDED BY THE RC
6.3.1 Now the Bench proceeds to analyze the reasons given by the
RC while deciding cases from village Garhi Bohar. The first reason given
by the RC while ignoring sale deeds bearing No.509, 708, 2146, 2121,
produced by the State of Haryana is that these sale instances reflects a price
lesser than the market value assessed by the LAC. The court while
misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act has ignored the sale deeds.
(Please see Lal Chand vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769.)
6.3.2 The Reference Court thereafter, worked out average sale price
while relying upon sale instances, dated 04.05.2006, bearing no.925, 926,
927, 928 and further proceeded to apply a deduction of 58% on account of
area/space for providing development infrastructure, development
expenditure and waiting period. The court further applied 10% deduction on
the ground that the sale deeds are with respect to comparatively a smaller
area. Thus, the court arrived at the figure of Rs.24,86,998.10/-.
6.4 ANALYSIS OF THE AFORESAID REASONS
6.4.1 It is evident that the sale deeds bearing No.13599, 14030, 902,
1878, 2276, 5825 and 6451, have been wrongly ignored by the Reference
Court while misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act. This point does not
19 of 36
need further elaboration for aforementioned reasons. While discussing the
award dated 15.12.2015, the RC erred in overlooking the sale deeds
No.925, 926, 927 and 928, produced by the landowners are not with respect
to various parcels of the acquired land. In fact, the aforesaid sale deeds are
with respect to area which is across the sector dividing road and forms a part
of Sector 28. Moreover, the Court ignored the sale instances of the acquired
land.
6.4.2 The Reference Court further erred in applying deduction of
68% without analyzing that sale instances of the acquired land of sufficiently
large sized parcels of land have been produced. It is observed here that the
RC did not had the advantage of examining the comprehensive layout plan.
(III) VILLAGE KANHELI
6.5 ANALYSIS OF THE AWARD BY RC
6.5.1 Now, the Bench proceeds to examine the case arising from
acquisition of land in village Kanheli measuring 2 kanals nd 17 marlas
which has been acquired for developing Sector 26, Rohtak.
6.5.2 In this award, the RC has ignored sale deeds bearing No.7790
and 7667 on the ground that these sale instances reflect a price lower than
the amount assessed and offered by the LAC. The RC has held that such sale
deeds cannot be taken into consideration in view of the bar under Section 25
of the 1894 Act. Secondly, the Reference Court has held that the sale deeds
bearing No.923, 924, 925, 926, 927 and 928 are with respect to various plots
of land located in village Garhi Bohar and in the absence of a proper site
plan showing the exact location of the land covered by the aforesaid sale
instances, it is not appropriate to assess the market value on the basis of sale
20 of 36
instances of a different village. Lastly, the court assessed the market value of
the acquired land @ Rs.24,86, 998.10 per acre on the basis of assessment
made by the court vide award dated 21.01.
6.5.3 The sale deeds No.7790 and 7667 have been incorrectly ignored
by the RC while misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act which has
already been discussed.
6.5.4 It is noted here that the Reference Court did not had the benefit
of layout plan which has been produced in this Court which shall be
discussed subsequently in the later part of the judgment.
(IV) VILLAGE PEHRAWAR
6.6 ANALYSIS OF THE AWARD BY RC
6.6.1 Now this Bench proceeds to discuss the reasons recorded by the
Reference Court while deciding various applications filed under Section 18
of the 1894 Act on 31.05.2017.
6.6.2 Firstly, the sale deeds bearing No.10641, 10695, 3664, 13897,
12061, 13743, 13193, 13894, 14866, 8048 and 4486, produced by the State
have been ignored while misinterpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act. The
court has held that since it reflects a price lesser than the amount assessed by
the Land Acquisition Collector, therefore, Section 25 debars the Court from
taking into consideration the aforesaid sale deeds. The second reason
assigned by the court to ignore sale deeds No.927, 928, 924, 925, 926, 923
and 12020, produced by the landowners is that these relate to a different
revenue estate i.e Garhi Bohar, whereas in the present case, the acquisition is
21 of 36
with respect to land located in village Bohar. Therefore, the Court proceeded
to rely upon sale deed No.11511 dated 10.01.2006 with respect to land
measuring 34 kanals and 11 marlas, which is of more than 4 acres, located in
village Pehrawar. Thereafter, the court applied a development cut of 45% to
arrive at a figure of Rs.21,45,000/-.
6.6.3 The reasons recorded by the Reference Court while ignoring the
sale instances produced by the State of Haryana are erroneous in view of the
foregoing discussion while referring to section 25 of the 1894 Act.
6.6.4 Further, the court has also erred in applying cut of 45% on the
sale instance vide sale deed no.11511 dated 10.01.2006 with respect to land
measuring 34 Kanals and 11 marlas sold at the average per acre price of
Rs.39,00,000/- (rounded). It is noted here that the Court did not had the
convenience of examining a proper layout plan, which has been produced
before this Court. It is evident that the sale deed no.11511, dated 10.01.2006,
is of a sufficiently big parcel of land which has not only been acquired but
also located in the centre of the rectangular block of acquired land.
7. DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT
7.1 With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,
the State of Haryana was requested to produce a copy of the comprehensive
layout plan of Sector 26, Rohtak, which includes the acquired area of
villages Kanheli, Bohar, Pehrawar and Kheri Sadh while identifying the
location of various parcels of land sold through the various sale deeds
produced by both the parties. On being produced, it has been taken on record
as Ex.HC-1. On a careful perusal of the aforesaid layout plan, it is evident
22 of 36
that the acquired land is in a compact rectangular block of land. On one side,
there is a railway line, whereas, on the other side, there are two parallel
canals i.e. JLN Water Feeder and Bhalout Sub Branch. On the third side,
there lies Sector 26-A and on the fourth side there lies Sector 27 and Sector
28. There is a 45 meter wide road between Sector 26 and Sector 27-28.
7.2 Now the Bench proceeds to analyze the evidence produced by
both the parties in a holistic manner. From a careful perusal of the layout
plan Ex.HC-1, it is evident that the entire acquired land is in a rectangular
shaped compact block. A very small part of village Kanheli measuring little
more than 2 kanal has been acquired. Village Kanheli is towards the Eastern
side of the acquired land. On the Eastern side, there are two parallel
canals/drains running on the Eastern boundary of the acquired land. On the
Southern side, there is a railway line which goes from East to West. On the
Western side, there is Sector 26-A. There is a 16 meter wide road in between
Sector 26 and Sector 26-A. On the Northern side, Sector 27 and Sector 28
have been developed.
7.3 It is also evident that a very large number of sale instances
produced by both the parties form a part of the acquired land. Out of the
cases arising from village Kheri Sadh, sale deeds bearing No.1786, 1793,
1794, 2457, 2568, 2637 form a part of the acquired land. Similarly, in
village Pehrawar, the sale instance No.11511, measuring 34 kanals of land
has also been acquired. This parcel of land is not only with respect to more
than 4 acres of acquired land but is also located near the railway line. This
parcel of land is located on the Southern boundary of the acquired land,
however, it does not abut the railway line. The sale deed No.11511
23 of 36
(10.01.2006), is the best sale exemplar produced for assessing the market
value. The sale consideration has been paid through cheques. The attention
of the court has not been drawn to any evidence to suggest that the
transaction was not bonafide or had been entered into in order to artificially
jack up the prices. This sale deed is reflecting the highest price. This sale
instance is with respect to a period approximately 11 months before the date
of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The
landowners are entitled to the highest sale price as per law expounded in the
various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This court on
02.03.2022 while deciding RFA No.458 of 2016 (M/s Satkartar Realtors
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others) has discussed this issue in
detail in paras 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12, which are extracted as under:-
6.10 Further, it is by now well settled that the landowners
are entitled to the highest price fetched by the various
owners of comparable sale deed during contemporaneous
period. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
following observations made in M. Vijayalakshmamma
Rao Bahadur v. Collector 1969 Madras Law Journal,
45 (SC) :-
"46-47 It seems to us that there is substance in the
first contention of Mr Ram Reddy. After all when the
land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to say that he should be given
the highest value which similar land in the locality is
shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction
entered into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller near about the time of the acquisition.
It is not disputed that the transaction represented by
Ext. R-19 was a few months prior to the notification
under Section 4 that it was a bona fide transaction
and that it was entered into between a willing
purchaser and a willing seller. The land comprised
in the sale deed is 11 grounds and was sold at Rs.
1961 per ground. The land covered by Ext. R27 was
also sold before the notification but after the land
comprised in Ext. R-19 was sold. It is true that this
land was sold at Rs. 1096 per ground. This,
24 of 36
however, is apparently because of two
circumstances. One is that betterment levy at Rs.
500 per ground had to be paid by the vendee and the
other that the land comprised in it is very much
more extensive, that is about 93 grounds or so.
Whatever that may be, it seems to us to be only fair
that where sale deeds pertaining to different
transactions are relied on behalf of the Government,
that representing the highest value should be
preferred to the rest unless there are strong
circumstances justifying a different course. In any
case we see no reason why an average of two sale
deeds should have been taken in this case.
6.11 Similarly, while deciding Anjani Molu Dessai vs.
State of Goa 2010 (13) SCC 710, the Supreme Court,
once again, re-interated the same principle in the
following manner:-
20. The legal position is that even where there are
several exemplars with reference to similar lands,
usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a
bona fide transaction, will be considered. Where
however there are several sales of similar lands
whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the
average thereof can be taken, as representing the
market price. But where the values disclosed in
respect of two sales are markedly different, it can
only lead to an inference that they are with
reference to dissimilar lands or that the lower
value sale is on account of undervaluation or other
price depressing reasons. Consequently, averaging
cannot be resorted to. We may refer to two
decisions of this Court in this behalf.
6.12 In Mehrawal Khewaji Trust's case (supra), it has
been held as under:-
"17. It is clear that when there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, it
is the general rule that the highest of the
exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona
fide transaction, has to be considered and
accepted. When the land is being
compulsorily taken away from a person, he
is entitled to the highest value which similar
land in the locality is shown to have fetched
in a bona fide transaction entered into
between a willing purchaser and a willing
seller near about the time of the acquisition.
In our view, it seems to be only fair that
where sale deeds pertaining to different
25 of 36
transactions are relied on behalf of the
Government, the transaction representing
the highest value should be preferred to the
rest unless there are strong circumstances
justifying a different course. It is not
desirable to take an average of various sale
deeds placed before the authority/court for
fixing fair compensation."
7.4 For the reasons recorded above, the sale deed No.11511, dated
10.01.2006, is found to be most appropriate to assess the market value of the
acquired land.
7.5 It may be noted here that there is no physical boundary between
the various revenue estates/villages. In such circumstances, the court while
assessing the market value should be conscious of the location of the
acquired land. The land between the two villages can be in continuity if the
owner of the contiguous parcels of land in both the villages is common. In
other cases, the boundary of the village can be identified by a Killa line
drawn with mud (in the local language it is call "Doll") which is few inches
higher than the agricultural land on which, only one person can barely walk
at one point of time. It is similar to the dividing line marked by the various
owners while segregating their respective parcels of land from their
neighbours. Further, there is no material to prove that due to location of the
land in a particular village when all other parameters are equal, there is
significant difference in the market value of the land located in contiguous
villages.
7.6 Moreover, while discussing the question of development cut,
this court in Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, RFA No.3000 of
2016, decided on 15.11.2021, has opined that the deduction cannot be
26 of 36
applied on the price of the undeveloped land which is reflected in the
comparable sale deeds executed during the contemporaneous period. The
relevant discussion on this aspect is extracted as under:-
"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.
27 of 36
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 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
28 of 36
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 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."
7.7 Now this Bench proceeds to discuss the sale deeds produced by
the State of Haryana in the cases arising from the acquisition of the land in
village Kheri Sadh. From a bare look at the layout plan Ex.HC-1, it is
evident that the State has produced sale deeds bearing No.509, 780, 2146
and 2121. The parcels of land with respect to sale deeds bearing No.509 and
780 are located on the other side of the railway line. Hence, the aforesaid
sale instances cannot be held to be comparable. As regards the sale deeds
29 of 36
bearing No.2146 and 2121, these also neither form part of the acquired land
nor are found comparable as regards their geographical location. Hence,
these, also, cannot be relied upon.
7.8 Now the Bench proceeds to examine the sale deeds produced by
the State of Haryana in the cases arising from compulsory acquisition of the
land from village Pehrawar. The State has produced as many as 11 sale
instances. As per the layout plan Ex.HC1, the sale instances bearing
no.10641, 10659, 3664, 13897, 12061, 13143, 13193, 13894, and 14886 are
with respect to the acquired land. However, it is evident that all these sale
instances are with respect to very small parcels of land as compared to the
acquired land. Sale deed no.8048 and 4486 are with respect to the plots
which are located across the railway line on the Southern side of the
acquired land. In other words, these parcels of land are far away from the
acquired land. Hence, they are not relevant for assessing the market value of
the acquired land. Otherwise also, the sale deeds, produced by the State are
liable to be ignored as the landowners are entitled to the highest price of the
comparable sale exemplar during the contemporaneous period.
7.9 In the reference petitions arising from the acquisition of land in
village Garhi Bohar, the State of Haryana has produced as many as 7 sale
deeds. As per Ex.HC-1, the layout plan, it is evident that sale deed no.14030
(10.03.2006), 13599 (28.02.2006), and 64151 (27.10.2006) form part of the
acquired land. Some part of land out of the land sold by sale deed no.908
dated 04.05.2006 has also been acquired. The sale deed no.13599, 64151
and 902 are with respect to very small parcels of land, therefore, are not
found to be comparable. As regards the sale deed no.14030 dated
30 of 36
10.03.2006, there is no material as to why the land was sold @
Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, approximately. However, since the landowners are
entitled to the best/highest price, therefore, sale deed no.14030 is liable to be
ignored for assessing the market value of the acquired land.
7.10 In the case arising from acquisition of land from village
Kanheli, the State of Haryana has produced two sale instances i.e. sale deed
No.7790 ( 06.12.2006) and 7667 (04.12.2006). From a bare perusal of
layout plan Ex.HC-1, it is evident that the aforesaid parcels of land do not
form part of the acquired land. Further, the aforesaid parcels are also with
respect to small plots of land and therefore, not found comparable.
8. DECISION
8.1 From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the most
reliable sale exemplar reflecting highest price is sale deed dated 10.01.2006
bearing no.11511. Through this sale instance, 34 kanals and 11 marlas of
land, which is more than 4 acres, has been purchased. This parcel of land
forms a part of the acquired land. This sale deed is of a period slightly more
than 11 months prior to date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
Keeping in view the fact that the various developers had started purchasing
the land in the area and there are more than 10 sale instances showing that
the real estate developers were purchasing the land in the area for carving
out residential colonies, therefore, it is safe to assume that the price would
have increased to some extent. Therefore, while increasing the price by 9%
per annum on Rs.39,00,000/- per acre, the market value on 15.12.2006
comes to Rs.42,51,000/- per acre.
31 of 36
8.2 Accordingly, the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed.
The landowners shall be entitled to the enhanced amount along with all the
statutory benefits as per the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
8.3 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
March 16, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Sr.
Case No. Party Name
No.
1.
RFA-10619-2014 SATBIR & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
2.
RFA-9653-2014 RAJ SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
3. JAI NARAIN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-13732-2018
AND ORS
4.
RFA-10621-2014 RAMESH & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
5.
RFA-10620-2014 SHIV KUMAR & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
6. KADAM SINGH & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-10624-2014
ORS
7. SMT. OM PATI & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-10622-2014
ORS
8. DHAN SINGH & ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-10623-2014
ORS
9. OM PARKASH & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-10625-2014
ORS
10. OM PARKASH & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-10626-2014
ANR.
11.
RFA-530-2018 YASHPAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
12.
RFA-532-2018 ROSHAN LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
13.
RFA-527-2018 RAVINDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
14. MADAN MOHAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-529-2018
HARYANA AND ORS
15. MADAN LAL RAHEJA V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-531-2018
AND ORS
32 of 36
16.
RFA-533-2018 PARVEEN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
17. SHANTI SWARUP V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-9314-2014
ORS
18.
RFA-536-2018 SANJAY V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
19. KAPOOR SINGH AND ANR V/S STATE OF
RFA-2403-2016
HARYANA AND ORS
20. BALBIR THROUGH HIS LRS V/S STATE OF
RFA-3031-2016
HARYANA AND OTHERS
21. KHAZAN SINGH & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-4240-2016
& ORS
22. OMBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-1118-2017
ORS
23. DHARAMBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-4510-2016
AND ORS
24. AMIT AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-4313-2016
ORS
25. RAGHBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS. AND
RFA-921-2017
ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
26.
RFA-4797-2016 RAMPAT V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHER
27.
RFA-918-2017 PREM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
28. SURESH (DECEASED) THR LRS. V/S STATE OF
RFA-1420-2017
HARYANA AND ORS
29. SUKHBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-919-2017
ORS
30. SMT. SURAJ BHAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-6772-2014
ORS
31. CHAWALI DEVI AND ANR V/S STATE OF
RFA-6773-2014
HARYANA AND ORS
32. HANS RAJ AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-6774-2014
ORS
33. AJIT SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-6775-2014
ORS
34. SATISH AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-6776-2014
AND ORS
35. UMRAO SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-5407-2015
& ORS
36.
RFA-1933-2019 KARAN SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
37. M/S GIRDHAR BUILDTECH LLP V/S STATE OF
RFA-50-2015
HARYANA & ORS
38. JAI NARAIN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9794-2014
HARYANA AND ORS
39.
RFA-1537-2016 CHANDER & ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
33 of 36
40. MAUSAM AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-1857-2016
ORS
41. SATBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-1856-2016
ORS
42. SMT. PHOOLPATI AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-8450-2014
HARYANA & ORS
43. SANJEEV AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-1855-2016
ORS
44.
RFA-9303-2014 OM PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
45. BHAGWAN DASS AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9313-2014
HARYANA AND ANR.
RAM SWARUP @ RAM ROOP NOW DECEASED
46.
RFA-5513-2017 THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND ORS
47.
RFA-5553-2017 RAJPAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
48. SATYA NARAYAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-5365-2017
OTHERS
49. GANGA SARUP AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-5366-2017
AND OTHERS
50.
RFA-5367-2017 SURESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
51. AANT RAM (DECEASED) THR LRS. AND ORS V/S
RFA-2503-2018
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
52. SHANTI SWARUP V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-535-2018
ANR.
53. DEVKI NANDAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-5512-2017
HARYANA AND OTHERS
RAM SWARUP @ RAM ROOP NOW DECEASED
54.
RFA-5363-2017 THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS V/S STATE OF
HARYANA AND OTHERS
55. UMESH KUMAR AND ANR V/S STATE OF
RFA-5364-2017
HARYANA AND OTHERS
56. SAT NARAYAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-5368-2017
HARYANA AND OTHERS
57. SMT. SUKHMA AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-8452-2014
& ORS
58. MEER SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA &
RFA-8963-2014
ORS
59. RAM BHAGAT AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-8451-2014
& ORS
60. SMT. RAM KALI AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9300-2014
HARYANA AND ANR.
61. RAM LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-9301-2014
ORS
62. SMT. GANGA DEVI AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9302-2014
HARYANA AND ANR.
34 of 36
63. RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9309-2014
HARYANA AND ANR.
64.
RFA-9299-2014 KALI RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
65. SHIV CHARAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-9304-2014
AND ORS
66. SADA RAM AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-9306-2014
AND ORS
67. SHRI BHAGWAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9310-2014
HARYANA AND ORS
68. RAM KUMAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-9311-2014
AND ORS
69. SHIV KUMAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-9327-2014
AND ANR.
70. KRISHAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-9315-2014
ORS
71. RAM LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-9298-2014
ORS
72. SMT. PARVATI AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-9305-2014
AND ORS
73. SATYAVIR PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-9307-2014
AND ANR.
74.
RFA-9308-2014 RAM SANEHI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
75. PAWAN KUMAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF
RFA-9312-2014
HARYANA AND ANR.
76. SARUPI AND ANRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-5421-2014
THRO COLLECTOR ROHTAK AND ORS
77. M/S SUBH LABH BUILDWELL PVT LTD V/S STATE
RFA-2085-2016
OF HARYANA & ORS
78. BANWARI THROUGH HIS LRS V/S STATE OF
RFA-3033-2016
HARYANA AND OTHERS
79. SMT. BHARPAI AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
RFA-2404-2016
AND ORS
80. JOT RAM AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-2406-2016
ORS
81. KULDEEP AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-2407-2016
ORS
82. M/S UDDAR TREES GROWING PVT LTD V/S STATE
RFA-2084-2016
OF HARYANA & ORS
83. CHAND SINGH DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS &
RFA-3030-2016
ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
84.
RFA-2405-2016 SHILAK RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
85. CHAND SINGH THROUGH HIS LR V/S STATE OF
RFA-3029-2016
HARYANA AND OTHERS
86. CHAND RAM @ CHAND SINGH (DECEASED)
RFA-3034-2016
THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF
35 of 36
HARYANA AND OTHERS
87.
RFA-2408-2016 PARMILA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
88. DAYA RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
RFA-3032-2016
OTHERS
89.
RFA-528-2018 SAROJ BALA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
36 of 36
