Manoj Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2053 P&H

       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                          Regular First Appeal No. 1485 of 2014 (O&M)

                                                  Date of Decision: 25.03.2022


Manoj Kumar and Others
                                                                ... Petitioner(s)

                                         Versus

State of Haryana and Another
                                                              ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:    Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate.
            Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate.
            Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate.
            Mr. Kartar singh Malik, Advocate.
            Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate.
            Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate.
            Mr. Pankaj Kaushik, Advocate.
            Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate.
            Mr. Saugat Khurana, Advocate.
            Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate for Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate.
            Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate.
            Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate,
            for the landowners.

            Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General,
            Haryana and Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General,
            Haryana.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Through this batch of appeals, filed under Section 54 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act"), the

landowners as well as the State of Haryana challenge the awards passed by

the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC") on 25.09.2013 and

29.07.2016 while assessing the market value of the acquired land measuring

1 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

89.09 acres. The notification under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and the

award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as

"the LAC") are common. The RC decided a batch of 21 reference petitions

vide judgment dated 25.09.2013, whereas one reference petition was decided

vide judgment dated 29.07.2016, while assessing the identical market value

of the acquired land. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad

idem that these appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common

judgment.

1.2 The relevant information concerning this bunch of appeals is

compiled in a tabulated form, as under:-

Sr. No. Date Particulars

1. 15.12.2006 A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued proposing to acquire land, located in village Bohar, for the construction of water works in Sector 34, Rohtak.

2. 13.12.2007 A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued.

3. 31.03.2008 The LAC announced award No. 24 with respect to the land measuring 89.09 acres, while offering to pay the amount @ ₹20,00,000/- per acre to the landowners, apart from the statutory benefits.

4. 25.09.2013 The RC, while deciding the 21 reference petitions, had assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ₹25,50,680/- per acre.

5. 29.07.2016 The RC, vide a separate judgment, had assessed the same compensation, as was assessed in the award dated 25.09.2013.

1.3 The landowners claim that the land has an immense potential

for being utilized in urban estate. It is contended that the acquired land is a

part of the Rohtak City and many developing residential complexes have 2 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

come up in this area. The Housing Board Colony, Sector 1, 2, 3, 4,

Maharishi Dayanand University and the various other similar

establishments, exist near the acquired land. The acquired land is not only

developed, but is also ideally located for commercial activities as all the

modern facilities like schools, hospitals and power supply etc. are available.

1.4 Per contra, the State of Haryana has contended that the LAC

has correctly assessed the market value of the acquired land.

2. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.1 The landowners (in LAC Case No. 42 of 11.02.2010, decided

on 25.09.2013), in order to prove their case, examined PW.1 Dharamvir,

PW.2 Pardeep, PW.3 Harpal, PW.4 Abhishek Singh, PW.5 Nafe Singh, PW.6

Manphool Singh. On the other hand, the State of Haryana examined Ram

Niwas, Kanungo, as RW.1. Apart from the sale deeds (a tabulated

compilation whereof is provided in para 2.5), the landowners produced the

following documentary evidence:-

Sr. No. Exhibit No. Description of the document

1. Ex.PW.4/1 Copy of Resolution

2. Ex.PW.4/2 Copy of Jamabandi

3. Ex.PW.4/3 Copy of Mutation

4. Ex.PW.4/9 Aks Shijra Plan (Revenue Layout Plan)

2.2 The State of Haryana, apart from the sale deeds (a tabulated

compilation whereof is provided in para 2.5), produced the following

documentary evidence:-

Sr. No. Exhibit No. Description of the document

1. Ex.R1 Copy of RR Policy

2. Ex.R2 Copy of Haryana Government Notification under Section 4

3. Ex.R3 Copy of Haryana Government Notification under Section 6 3 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

Sr. No. Exhibit No. Description of the document

4. Ex.R4 Copy of Collector Rate

5. Ex.R5 Copy of Award

6. Ex.R14 Copy of Site Plan

2.3 The RC, vide a separate judgment dated 29.07.2016, decided

one reference petition i.e. LAC Case No. 32 of 02.06.2012. The landowners,

in order to prove their case, have examined Rampal Yadav as PW.1. In the

aforesaid reference, apart from the sale deeds (a tabulated compilation

whereof is provided in para 2.5), the following documentary evidence was

produced by the landowners:-

Sr. No. Exhibit No. Description of the document

1. Ex.P1 Certified copy of the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors.

2. Ex.P2 Copy of Award No. 24 dated 31.03.2008

3. Ex.P3 Copy of Objections U/s 5-A of the Act

4. Ex.P24 Certified copy of judgment passed by Sh.Jagjit Singh, ADJ, Rohtak, in LAC Case No. 42 of 11.2.2010 titled as "Ranwar v.

State of Haryana and Others"

5. Ex.P25 Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009

2.4 On the other hand, the State of Haryana did not lead any oral or

documentary evidence in the aforesaid reference.

2.5 Further, for the sake of brevity, a consolidated compilation of

the sale deeds/sale exemplars of village Bohar along with the relevant

information, produced by the respective parties, is tabulated as under:-

Sr. Exhibit Nos. Sale Deed No. and Total Area Price Per Acre/ No. Date Total Price (in ₹)

1. P1/D 923 dt. 04.05.2006 6K-17M /77,01,563/ 89,94,526

2. P-12, P1/E 924 dt. 04.05.2006 16K-8M /1,84,54,687/ 90,02,286

3. P-13, P1/F 925 dt. 04.05.2006 9K-11.68M /1,07,82,188/ 90,00,156 4 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

Sr. Exhibit Nos. Sale Deed No. and Total Area Price Per Acre/ No. Date Total Price (in ₹)

4. P-14, P1/G 926 dt. 04.05.2006 76K-7M 26,85,503/ 2,58,36,562

5. P-9, P1/H 927 dt. 04.05.2006 6K-1M 90,01,240/ 68,07,188

6. P-10, P1/L 928 dt. 04.05.2006 14K-10M 89,99,482/ 1,63,11,562

7. P-4, P-20 1182 dt. 11.05.2006 21K-7M 35,00,000/ 93,40,625

8. P-4, PW4/6 1302 dt. 04.05.2007 3K-13.52M 47,00,000/ 21,59,650

9. P-5, PW4/8 1441 dt. 08.05.2007 2K-12.58M 46,99,392/ 15,44,338

10. R-6 2306 dt. 09.06.2006 1K 15,00,000/ 1,87,500

11. R-7 2307 dt. 09.06.2006 1K 15,00,000/ 1,87,500

12. R-8 2308 dt. 09.06.2006 1K 15,00,000/ 1,87,500

13. R-9 2309 dt. 09.06.2006 1K 15,00,000/ 1,87,500

14. R-10 2367 dt. 12.06.2006 18.1236 M 15,75,845/ 1,78,500

15. P-21, P1/B 2718 dt. 21.06.2006 23K-12M 43,00,000/ 1,26,85,000

16. P-1, P-7 3067 dt. 03.07.2006 10K-9.88M 43,40,003/ 56,93,000

17. P-5, P-6 3088 dt. 03.07.2006 8K-14M 35,00,000/ 38,06,250

18. P-6, P-19 3090 dt. 03.07.2006 4K 35,00,000/ 17,50,000

19. R-11 3200 dt. 06.07.2006 1K-6M 15,01,538/ 2,44,000

20. P-2, P1/A, 3498 dt. 17.07.2006 7K-8.8M 43,50,000/ P-17, P-18 40,45,500

21. R-12 3857 dt. 31.07.2006 11 M 15,05,454/ 1,03,500

22. R-13 5143 dt. 11.09.2006 2K-13M 9,91,698/ 3,28,500

23. P-3, P-22 7840 dt. 08.12.2006 1 Acre 45,00,000/ 45,00,000

24. P-7, P-8 8699 dt. 03.01.2007 39K-11M 44,51,833/ 2,20,08,750

5 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

Sr. Exhibit Nos. Sale Deed No. and Total Area Price Per Acre/ No. Date Total Price (in ₹)

25. P-15, PW4/4 10004 dt. 07.02.2007 3K-4M 47,00,000/ 18,80,000

26. P-16, PW4/7 10010 dt. 07.02.2007 4K 47,00,000/ 23,50,000

27. P-23, PW4/5 10157 dt. 13.02.2007 1A-1K-19M 47,00,000/ 58,45,625

28. P-11, P1/C 12020 dt. 20.01.2006 19K-1M 1,04,81,102/ 2,49,58,125

2.6 In order to understand the information compiled in above-noted

table, it is appropriate to explain the meaning of the words/phrases used, as

under:-

                1. 1 Rectangle           = 5 X 5 = 25 Acre
                2. 1 Acre                = 160 Marlas
                3. 8 Kanal               = 1 Acre
                4. 1 Kanal               = 20 Marlas
                5. 1 Acre                = 4840 Sq. Yards
                6. 1 Marla               = 272.251 Sq. Feet = 30.25 Sq.
                                           Yards
                7. 1 Inch                = 2.54 cm
                8. 1 Foot                = 12 Inch.
                9. 1 Sq. Feet            = 12 X 12 =144 Inch.
               10. 1 Yard                = 3 Feet
                11. 1 Sq. Yard           = 9 Sq. Feet
               12. 100 Sq. Yards         = 900 Sq. Feet
               13. 1 Kanal               = 0.125 Acre
               14. 1 Marla               = 0.00625001 Acre
               15. "//" denotes Rectangle Number.
               16. "/" denotes Khasra/Killa Number.
               17. "A" denotes Acre
               18. "K" denotes Kanal
               19. "M" denotes Marla




                               6 of 19


And Other Connected Cases

3. ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE RESPECTIVE COUNSELS

3.1 Heard the learned counsel representing both the parties and

with their able assistance, perused both the judgments passed by the RCs on

25.09.2013 as well as 29.07.2016 and examined the records of the Court

below in both the cases, which were requisitioned.

3.2 The learned counsel representing the landowners have

contended that the sale deeds No. 2718 (21.06.2006), 3067 (03.07.2006) and

7830 (08.12.2006) are with respect to the parcels of land, located close to the

acquired land. It is further contended that the RC has erred in calculating the

average per acre price of the various sale deeds. They further contend that

the RC has erred, while observing that since the various parcels of land

represented by various sale deeds produced by the landowners, appear to be

in a more developed area, therefore, the development cut @ 45% is required

to be applied for providing space for infrastructure development,

development expenditure and the waiting period, whereas, the deduction @

10% is required to be applied due to the comparatively smaller area.

3.3 Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State has

submitted that the sale deed No. 2306, 2307, 2308 and 2309 dated

09.06.2006 is part of the acquired land and therefore, the market value was

around ₹15,00,000/- per acre, whereas the LAC has awarded @

₹20,00,000/- per acre.

3.4 The learned counsel representing the parties have also filed

their written synopsis along with the gist of their submissions.

7 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

4. DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT

4.1 Since a comprehensive layout plan was not available to

examine the comparative geographical location of the acquired land vis-a-vis

the various parcels of the land represented by the sale deeds, with the

consent of the parties, the Patwari of the area was requested to prepare a

layout plan, which has been produced and marked as Ex. HC-1.

4.2 At this stage, firstly, it would be appropriate to examine the

various reasons recorded by the RC. The RC has ignored the sale deeds

(Ex.R6 to Ex.R13) on the ground that these sale deeds reflect the price lower

than the amount assessed by the LAC. The RC has held that in view of

Section 25 of the 1894 Act, the aforesaid sale instances cannot be

considered. The RC while relying upon the various sale instances bearing

No. 928, 1182, 1302, 1441, 3067, 3498, 7840, 10004, 10010 and 10157,

arrived at a figure of ₹56,68,177/- per acre. After applying the deduction @

55%, on various counts, the RC has assessed the market value of the

acquired land @ 25,50,680/-.

4.3 As regards the first reason assigned by the RC to ignore the sale

exemplars produced by the State, it would be noted that the RC has misread

Section 25 of the 1894 Act. It would be noted here that Section 25 of the

1894 Act only bars the Court from assessing the market value lower than the

value assessed by the LAC. However, there is no bar in taking into

consideration the various sale exemplars reflecting the price lower than the

amount assessed by the LAC. This matter has been, comprehensively,

decided by the Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Others

(2009) 15 SCC 769. Hence, this issue is no longer res integra.

8 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

4.4 The RC has also committed an error in calculating per acre

average price of the various sale exemplars noted above. The RC has also

committed an error in deducting 55% from the base value, arrived at after

averaging the per acre price of the various sale deeds. In the considered

view of this Court, once the comparable sale instances of contemporaneous

period are available, then there was no occasion to apply the development

cut.

4.5 On a careful examination of the layout plan (Ex. HC-1), it is

evident that the State of Haryana has acquired the land out of rectangle No.

104, 105, 106, 126 and 128. In terms of unit of the land, a rectangle means

25 acres of land in a rectangular shape. It is also evident that the sale deed

No. 3067 dated 03.07.2006 is with respect to the land comprised in rectangle

No. 102 and 103, whereas, the sale deed No.2718 (21.06.2006) is with

respect to the land sold from rectangle No. 101. It is also evident that the

sale deed No. 7840 dated 08.12.2006 is out of the land comprised in

rectangle No. 93, 128, 102, 103 and 129. Through this sale exemplar, 1 acre

of the land has been sold @ ₹45,00,000/- per acre. As per the sale deed No.

3067, the land measuring 10 kanals and 9.88 marlas was sold @

₹43,40,003/- per acre. Through the sale deed No. 2718, the land measuring

23 kanals and 12 marlas was sold @ ₹43,00,000/- per acre. Thus, it is

evident that the price of the land of various plots was ranging from

₹43,00,000/- to ₹45,00,000/- per acre. The remaining sale deeds, produced

by the landowners, are not with respect to the parcels of land situated in a

comparable geographical location.

9 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

4.6 It is also evident that the water works is planned to be

constructed in the parcel of the land, which is very much a part of Sector 34,

Rohtak. This sector is reserved for residential purposes. The various sale

exemplars, produced by the landowners, are comparable. It would be noted

here that the State has produced the various sale exemplars including the

sale deed No. 2306, 2307, 2308 and 2309, which were all executed on

09.06.2006. All these sale exemplars are with respect to 1 kanals of land

each. The vendor, in all these sale deeds, is common. These are very small

parcels of the land when compared to the acquired land. There is another

sale exemplar, produced by the State, i.e. 3857 dated 31.07.2006, whereas,

the land measuring 11 marlas has been sold. It would be noted here that this

sale exemplar is also with respect to a very small parcel of land, hence, not

comparable with the acquired land.

4.7 Moreover, the landowners are entitled to the maximum price as

their land had been acquired compulsorily. The sale exemplar dated

08.12.2006 is executed only a few days before the date of issuance of

notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The land measuring 1 acre has

been sold from the land comprised in rectangle No. 93, 128, 102, 103 and

129. A bare look at the layout plan (Ex.HC-1) shows that some part of the

acquired land is from the rectangle No. 128. There is also no evidence to

prove that there was a significant difference in the prices of the land with

respect to the nearby area. The various sale exemplars, produced by the

landowners, are, in fact, of the land, which has been developed for

residential purposes in Sector 34. In such circumstances, the sale exemplar

No. 7840 is considered appropriate for assessing the market value of the

10 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

acquired land. Since the aforesaid sale exemplar is of the land measuring 1

acre, which has been purchased @ ₹45,00,000/- per acre, therefore, the

market value of the acquired land is also assessed @ ₹45,00,000/- per acre.

4.8 As regards the question of the development cut, this matter has

been examined at length in the case of Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana and

others (Regular First Appeal No.3000 of 2016, decided on 15.11.2021).

The relevant discussion is 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

11 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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 cut or

development cost per se, he shall stand deprived of the market

12 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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.

13 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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 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

14 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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."

4.9 As regards the entitlement of the landowners to get the

maximum price, this Court, while deciding a batch of appeals in M/s

Satkartar Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and others (Regular First

Appeal No.458 of 2016, decided on 02.03.2022) after relying upon the

various judgments, passed by the Supreme Court, has held 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

15 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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, 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

16 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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

17 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

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

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."

5. DECISION

5.1 In view thereof, the appeals, filed by the landowners, are

allowed, whereas the appeals, filed by the State of Haryana, are hereby

dismissed.

5.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending in all these appeals, if

any, shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 25, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Sr. No. Case No. Party Name

1. RFA-1041-2017 M/S Pushpak Realtors Pvt Ltd vs. State Of Haryana And Others

2. RFA-67-2017 State Of Haryana Through Collector Rohtak And Ors vs. M/S Pushpak Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

3. RFA-10662-2014 Nafe Singh & Ors vs. State Of Haryana & Ors

4. RFA-1214-2016 Jai Pal And Ors vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

18 of 19

And Other Connected Cases

5. RFA-8478-2014 State Of Haryana & Ors vs. Harpal Singh

6. RFA-8490-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Sukhbir Thr Gp Holder

7. RFA-8480-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Manphool Singh & Ors

8. RFA-8485-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Satpal And Ors

9. RFA-8494-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Surender Singh And Ors

10. RFA-7327-2015 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Smt Leechhmi Devi and Ors

11. RFA-6508-2015 Surender Singh & Ors vs. State Of Haryana Anr

12. RFA-8481-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Attar Singh & Ors

13. RFA-8487-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Satbir Singh & Ors

14. RFA-8495-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Smt. Vidya Wati And Anr

15. RFA-8916-2014 Raj Rati (DECEASED) Thr Lr & Ors vs. State Of Haryana & Ors

16. RFA-8917-2014 Smt. Vidyawati vs. State Of Haryana & Anr

17. RFA-8496-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors

18. RFA-8479-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Om Parkash And Ors

19. RFA-8483-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Dilbagh Singh

20. RFA-8484-2014 State Of Haryana & Ors vs. Vidyawati

21. RFA-8913-2014 Ram Kanwar & Ors vs. State Of Haryana& Ors

22. RFA-8914-2014 Om Parkash & Ors vs. State Of Haryana& Anr

23. RFA-8477-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Ram Kanwar & Ors

24. RFA-8486-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Virender Singh

25. RFA-8489-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Jai Pal & Ors

26. RFA-8493-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Suresh Kumar

27. RFA-8482-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Devender And Ors

28. RFA-8491-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. M/S Harihar Buildcon Pvt Ltd & Ors

29. RFA-8492-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Rajender And Ors

30. RFA-9100-2014 Virender Singh vs. State Of Haryana & Anr

31. RFA-8915-2014 Rajender vs. State Of Haryana& Ors

32. RFA-5449-2014 Manphool Singh & Anr vs. State Of Haryana & Ors

33. RFA-7326-2015 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Nafe Singh And Ors

34. RFA-2786-2016 Dilbag Singh vs. State Of Haryana And Anr

35. RFA-2787-2016 Smt. Vidyawati And Anr vs. State Of Haryana And Anr

36. RFA-8488-2014 State Of Haryana & Anr vs. Smt. Bedo Devi And Anr

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 25, 2022 "DK"

19 of 19