Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandri vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
-1-
RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
RFA No. 4335 of 2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:116091
279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.08.2023
Chandri
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
(2) RFA No. 4335 of 2019(O&M)
Jalphool Singh and others
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate
for the appellant / landowner (in RFA-4538-2018)
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate
for the appellants / landowners (in RFA-4335-2019)
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-11038-CI-2019 in RFA-4335-2019
Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the
applicants-appellants is for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing
the appeal.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
RFA No. 4335 of 2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:116091
Notice of the application.
Learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
non-applicants/respondents-State and opposes the prayer made in
the application.
In view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit, the prayer is allowed and delay of 53 days in
filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
MAIN APPEAL(S)
This order shall dispose off present two appeals bearing
RFA Nos. 4538 of 2018 & 4335 of 2019, as the same arise out of
common acquisition.
[2] The landowners, by instituting the aforementioned
appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short "the Act"), are seeking modification of the respective awards
dated 23.01.2017 & 18.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as "Reference Court") for
enhancement of compensation amount.
[3] In pursuance of Haryana Govt. Notification under Section
4 of the Act issued on 14.08.2008, followed by Notification dated
30.08.2008 under Section 6 thereof, the land of appellants situated in
the revenue estate of Village Kheri Kalan, Tehsil & District
Faridabad, was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition of the
land was stated to be Development & Utilization of Master Plan
Roads of Sectors 75 to 89, Faridabad. The Land Acquisition
Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana (for short "LAC"), vide
Award No. 10, dated 09.08.2012, assessed the market value of
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
RFA No. 4335 of 2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:116091
acquired land @ Rs. 42,00,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory
benefits.
[4] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners /
interested persons filed references under Section 18 of the Act, which
were decided vide awards dated 23.01.2017 & 18.04.2019 by learned
Reference Court, whereby the market value of the acquired land was
enhanced / assessed @ Rs. 1870/- & Rs. 1118/- per square yard (in
respective appeals), besides granting statutory benefits.
[5] It is pertinent to mention here that the matters pertaining
to the enhancement were remanded by the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No(s) 21014-21016 of 2017, titled "Premwati & Ors. Versus
State of Haryana & Anr.", decided on 06.12.2017, after those were
decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the first round on
16.09.2015 in case of 'Rampal and others Vs. Land Acquisition
Collector and another', 2016 (1) RCR (Civil) 494. Thereafter, the
matter was again decided by Single Bench of this Court vide
judgment dated 31.05.2019 in Ram Pal's case (supra), whereby
the market value for the acquired land with regard to the notification
dated 14.08.2008 pertaining to Villages Neemka, Fajjupur Majra
Neemka, Kheri Khurd, Faridpur, Kheri Kalan, Bhupani, Riwajpur and
Tikawali, was fixed @ Rs. 1760/- per square yard (Rs. 85,18,400/- per
acre).
[6] Against the judgment dated 31.05.2019 (supra), parties
approached Hon'ble Supreme Court in a batch of appeals, lead case
of which was Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2021, titled "Banwari Lal &
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
RFA No. 4335 of 2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:116091
Anr. Versus State of Haryana & Ors.", which have been decided on
three different dates, 08.07.2021, 13.07.2021 & 14.07.2021.
[7] It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant(s)
that present appeals are squarely covered with the judgment of
Banwari Lal's case (supra), arising out of the same notification vide
which the land of appellants was acquired.
[8] Learned State Counsel is not in a position to controvert
the aforesaid factual aspect that the main appeals are covered in
terms of judgment of Banwari Lal's case (supra); however, opposes
payment of interest for the period, the appellants failed to approach
this Court after the decision of Reference Court.
[9] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book.
[10] From the records, it is apparent that the present appeals
are squarely covered with the judgment of Banwari Lal's case
(supra), which are arising out of the same acquisition / Notification
dated 14.08.2008 covering the same revenue estate i.e. Village
Kheri Kalan, Tehsil & District Faridabad, whereby the landowners
have been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation @
Rs. 2665/- per square yard. For reference, the relevant paras of
judgment dated 13/14.07.2021 passed in case of Banwari Lal's
(supra) (at page Nos. 59 to 61) read as under:-
" Village : Kheri Kalan
As regards Village Kheri Kalan, covered under the
third notification, the High Court has determined the fair
market price of lands at Rs.1760/- per sq.yd.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
RFA No. 4335 of 2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:116091
While doing so, the High Court excluded the sale
instances pertaining to year 2006, and took note of the sale
instances of year 2007. We find that approach is correct. The
sale instances in close proximity ought to be reckoned for
determining the fair market price.
Reverting to the sale instances of year 2007, it is
true that, although, the same have been executed on different
dates, the consideration amount is common at Rs.3099/- per
sq.yd. That by itself does not make the transaction suspect for
being discarded.
If the sale instance of 2006 is taken into account,
the consideration was Rs.2273/- per sq.yd. By 2007,
particularly, after the first notification was issued in respect of
neighboring villages on 01.05.2006, there was bound to be
cascading effect on the transactions in the neighboring
villages. Perhaps, that may be the reason for rise in the price,
referred to in the sale instances of 2007. The first such sale
instance is of 12.06.2007 for Rs.3099/- per sq.yd. The other
four sale instances of the same year around the same time
are also for the same amount. The fact that those sale
instances pertain to some developer, cannot be the basis to
discard the same by itself, unless there is evidence to suggest
that the same have been entered into to get more
compensation amount in the event of acquisition of land.
In other words, it is not a speculative transaction.
That evidence is lacking in the present case. Hence, we take
the sale consideration at Rs.3099/- per sq.yd. as the base
price and add 7.5% per annum thereon, as the third
notification was issued after one year from the date on which
the sale instance was executed.
We further provide deduction at the rate of 20%
towards development charges as in the other cases.
As a result, the fair market price for the lands
situated in the village Kheri Kalan, covered under the
third notification will work out to Rs.2665/- (Rupees two
thousand six hundred sixty-five only) per sq.yd.
(Rs.3099/- plus Rs.232 minus Rs.666/-).
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
RFA No. 4538 of 2018 (O&M)
RFA No. 4335 of 2019 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:116091
Hence, the appeal(s) filed by the State challenging
the enhancement by the High Court stand rejected, whereas
the appeal(s) filed by the claimant(s) for enhancement are
partly allowed to the above extent. Rest of the benefits
including statutory benefits awarded by the High Court shall
remain undisturbed. "
[10.1] Based upon the above, applying the principle of parity,
besides award of just and fair compensation, the landowners /
appellants being similarly situated are held entitled for grant of similar
amount of compensation as has been awarded to other landowners
vide decision dated 13/14.07.2021 in case of Banwari Lal (supra),
alongwith all other statutory benefits and interest thereupon as
provided under the Act.
[11] Disposed off in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
August 29, 2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:116091
6 of 6
