Siri Pal vs The State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 250 P&H

           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                 Regular First Appeal No. 149 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                 And Other Connected Cases

                                                     Date of Decision: 09.01.2023
                                                        Reserved On: 21.12.2022


Siri Pal
                                                                   ... Appellant(s)

                                            Versus

The State of Haryana and Others
                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:       Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate
               with Mr. Dhruv Mittal, Advocate,
               Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate
               with Mr. Surya Kumar, Mr. Ranvijay Singh Yadav,
               Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Mr. Ashwani Gaur,
               Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, Advocates and
               Mr. O.P.Goyal, Senior Advocate with
               Ms. Parul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the landowners.

               Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General,
               Haryana.

               Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
               for the HSIIDC.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. Introduction and Background

1.1 While praying for the modification of the market value of the

acquired land assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter

referred to as "the LAC") which has been affirmed by the Reference Court

(hereinafter referred to as "the RC"), the landowners have filed this batch of

appeals (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment).

1.2 The notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition

1 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") and the awards passed

by the LAC as well as the RC are common. In fact, the RC has consolidated

all the 48 petitions in the LAC Case No. 93 dated 28.08.2015 titled as "Siri

Pal v. The State of Haryana and Others". The entire evidence was led in

the aforesaid case. The learned counsel representing the parties are also ad

idem that this batch of appeals can conveniently be decided by a common

judgment.

1.3 The relevant particulars, for the purpose of decision of the

present case, are as under:-

 S.NO.            TITLE                           DETAILS
   1.  Date of Notification under                  05.02.2010
       Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
   2.  Date of Notification under                  11.02.2011
       Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
   3.  Purpose of Acquisition.      For the construction of Integrated
                                    Complex for Industrial Storage Space,
                                    Railway Siding, Institutional public-
                                    semi public use and other public
                                    utilities.

4. Location, area and nature of The acquired land is located in village the acquired land Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram.

5. Number and Date of the Vide Award No. 25 dated 08.02.2013 Award of the Land the acquired land measuring 239 acres Acquisition Collector. and 13 marlas, located in Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram.

6. Amount assessed by the Land The LAC has offered to pay the Acquisition Collector. market value of the acquired land located in village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram., @ ₹55,00,000/- per acre.

   7.  Date of the judgment of the                 25.10.2021
       Reference Court.

8. Amount determined by the The RC has dismissed all the 48 Reference Court. reference petitions.

2 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

2. Facts

2.1 Dissatisfied with the amount offered by the LAC, for

involuntary acquisition of their land located in village Patli Hazipur,

comprised in rectangle No. 40, 41, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143,

144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151 and 153, on the application of the

landowners the cases were referred to the RC under Section 18 of the 1894

Act for redetermination. The landowners have claimed that the market value

of the acquired land on 05.10.2010 was not less than ₹5,00,00,000/- as the

land has the potential to be utilized for residential, industrial and

commercial purposes. It has been asserted that the various five star hotels,

commercial sites, residential sectors of the Industrial Model Township,

Manesar and many branches of the nationalized banks are located in the said

area. On the other hand, the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure and

Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the HSIIDC") has

stated that the LAC has already awarded the reasonable, appropriate and

adequate market value of the acquired land, therefore, there is no scope for

further enhancement.

2.2 It would be noted here that in Regular First Appeal No. 752 of

2022, the landowners have filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") for

permitting them to lead additional evidence. The landowners wish to

produce the Collector's rate of the year 2010-11 with respect to the villages

located in Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, District Gurugram w.e.f. 11.10.2010. They

also wish to produce the Collector's rates list for the year 2011-12 w.e.f.

01.04.2011 as well as for the year 2012-13 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, a certified

3 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

copy of the judgment passed by the RC on 15.03.2022 while deciding the

cases of village Dhana with respect to the same notifications, a certified

copy of the award No. 26 dated 08.02.2013 with respect to the village

Bawra Bakipur and award No. 27 dated 08.02.2013 with respect to the

acquisition of the land in village Dhana and award No. 25 dated 08.02.2013

with respect to the village Patli Hazipur. All these documents are the official

documents prepared by the Government of Haryana as well as the judgment

of the Reference Court. Hence, the application for permission to lead

additional evidence is allowed. The same are taken on record as Ex.HC1,

Ex.HC2, Ex.HC3, Ex.HC4, Ex.HC5, Ex.HC6 and Ex.HC7, respectively.

2.3 From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were

framed by the RC for adjudication:-

"1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the

time of acquisition vide notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? OPP

2) Whether the petitions are time barred ? OPR

3) Relief."

3. Evidence Produced by the Respective Parties

3.1 In the oral evidence, the landowners have examined the

following witnesses:-

Sr. No. Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness

1. PW.1 Sh.Kuldeep Assistant Draftsman, Office of DTP, Gurugram.

      2.   PW.2 Sh. Babu Lal                             Petitioner .
      3.   PW.3 Sh.Krishan Kumar               Halqa Patwari, Village Patli
                                               Hazipur, District Gurugram.
      4.   PW.4 Sh.Kanshi Ram Dahiya           Draftsman, District Court,
                                               Gurugram.

                               4 of 17


And Other Connected Cases


      5.   PW.5 Sh.DevenderSingh                Registration     Clerk,   Tehsil
                                                Farukh Nagar.
      6.   PW.6 Sh. Harish Sharma                          Petitioner.
      7.   PW.7 Sh. Amit Thakran                           Petitioner.

3.2          In the documentary evidence, the landowners have produced

the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation

whereof is incorporated in para 5.3 of the judgment:-

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document

1. Ex.P1 Gurugram Manesar Urban Complex Final Development Plan 2021 AD.

2. Ex.P2 Gurugram Manesar Urban Complex Final development plan 2025 AD

3. Ex.PX Original RTI reply dated 9.3.2021 alongwith RTI application

4. Ex.PY Original RTI reply dated 7.4.2021 alongwith RTI application

5. Ex.PA Certified true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company on 10.2.2017 of M/s. Umang Leasing and Credit Company Limited.

6. Ex.PAA Copy of writ petition no. 4952 of 2012 titled as Ms. Umang Leasing and Credit Company Limited Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.1.2017 by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

3.3 On the other hand, in the oral evidence, the HSIIDC has

examined Sh.Dalbir Singh Bhatti, Senior Manager (IA), HSIIDC, IMT

Manesar, Gurugam as RW.1.

3.4 In the documentary evidence, the HSIIDC has produced the

following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation

whereof is in para 5.3 of the judgment:-

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document

1. Ex.R1 Copy of LAC award no.25 dated 8.2.2013 of Village Patli Hazipur, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, Distt. District Gurugram.

2. Ex.R2 Copy of Policy for Rehabilitation and 5 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

Sr. No. Exhibit Number Description of the document resettlement of land owners

3. Ex.R3 Proceedings of rate fixation committee

4. Mark A Collector rate of Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, Gurugram of the year 2009-2010

4. Analysis of the Reasons Recorded by the RC

4.1 After discussing the various sale deeds produced by the

landowners, the RC found that the sale deeds bearing Nos. 549 (Ex.P1),

2147 (Ex.P2:Ex.P6), 3475 (Ex.P3), 171 (Ex.P5:Ex.P7), 1542 (Ex.PW.5/A),

2737 (Ex.P9) and 1911 (Ex.P11) are with respect to the constructed

buildings/structures like the tube-well, trees etc. and hence, in the absence of

the evidence to separately identify the value of the structures/building/trees,

it would not be safe to rely upon the aforesaid sale deeds to assess the

market value of the acquired land. The sale deed No.1911 (Ex.PW.5/B)

pertaining to a plot measuring 200 square yards is also with respect to a

house of four rooms. Similarly, the sale deed No. 1697 (Ex.P12) is with

respect to a tiny size of plot measuring 250 square yards. Similarly, the sale

deed No. 3325 (Ex.P8) pertains to a plot measuring 480 square yards

located in village Judola. These sale deeds were also excluded as the parcels

of plots sold through the aforesaid sale deeds were not found comparable

with the acquired land. The RC held that the sale deed No. 735 dated

28.05.2007 (Ex.P8) with respect to the land measuring 15 kanals and 3

marlas located in village Judola also cannot be relied upon as the land was

purchased by bigger corporate entity like M/s Adani Limited. Similarly, the

sale deed No. 257 dated 20.04.2007 (Ex.P9) was also not relied upon by the

RC. The sale deeds bearing No. 885 (Ex.P13), 908 (Ex.P14), 2852

(Ex.P15) and 2900 (Ex.P16) were with respect to the period post 05.02.2010 6 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

i.e. the date of the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the

1894 Act, hence, they cannot be relied. Thereafter, the RC has discussed the

sale deeds bearing No. 2282 (Ex.R4), 3193 (Ex.R5), 194 (Ex.R6), 2312

(Ex.R7), 3579 (Ex.R8), 1139 (Ex.R9) 2121 (Ex.R10), 2586 (Ex.R11), 2574

(Ex.R12), 3236 (Ex.R13), 3569 (Ex.R14), 1032 (Ex.R15), 1720 (Ex.R16),

1787 (Ex.R17), 2107 (Ex.R18), 3530 (Ex.R19), 2708 (Ex.R20), 2787

(Ex.R21), 2546 (Ex.R22), 2485 (Ex.R23) and 2599 )(Ex.R24) produced by

the HSIIDC to conclude that there is no cogent evidence to prove that the

market value of the acquired land was more than ₹55,00,000/- per acre.

5. Discussion and Analysis of the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties.

5.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and

with their able assistance, perused the impugned judgments as well as the

record of the Reference Court, which was requisitioned.

5.2 The learned counsel representing the parties have also filed

short notes of their respective arguments.

5.3 At this stage, it would be appropriate to compile the tabulated

information of the various sale deeds produced by the respective parties:-

Sr. Exhibit     Sale      Dated                Area    Amount       Name       of  Rate Per
No. No.         Deed                                    (In ₹)      Village           acre
                No.                                                                  (In ₹)
1.       P1       549   08.06.2009       94K-14M      9,65,00,000   Patli Hazipur 81,52,059
2.      P2/P6    2147   13.10.2008       17K-12M      4,01,40,000      Bawra      1,82,45,455
                                                                      Bakipur
3.       P4      2755   17.12.2008       11K-18M      2,82,62,500      Bawra      1,90,00,000
                                                                      Bakipur
4.      P4/P3    3475   16.03.2009       11K-18M      2,35,00,000      Bawra      1,57,98,319
                                                                      Bakipur
5.      P5/P7    171    30.04.2009       18K-16M      4,70,00,000      Bawra      2,00,00,000
                                                                      Bakipur
6.       P5      1710   29.08.2008       17K-16M      3,85,55,957      Bawra      1,73,28,520
                                                                      Bakipur
7.     PW.5/A    1542   15.09.2009        9K-13M      3,79,96,875      Jadola     3,15,00,000

                                     7 of 17


  And Other Connected Cases


Sr. Exhibit  Sale        Dated                Area    Amount       Name       of   Rate Per
No. No.      Deed                                      (In ₹)      Village            acre
             No.                                                                     (In ₹)
8.    PW.5/B  1911     09.11.2009         6.5M         5,00,000    Patli Hazipur 1,23,07,692
9.     P6     1709     29.08.2008       23K-15M      5,14,44,043      Bawra       1,73,28,520
                                                                     Bakipur
10.     P7/P9   2737   28.01.2010        9K-12M      5,00,00,000      Jadola      4,16,66,667
11.       P8    3325   04.12.2012          16M       1,05,16,000      Jadola     10,51,60,000
12.       P8     735   28.05.2007        15K-3M      3,21,93,750      Jadola      1,70,00,000
13.       P9     257   20.04.2007        18K-9M      3,45,93,750      Jadola      1,50,00,000
14.      P10/    908   25.06.2010          16K       1,90,00,000   Patli Hazipur 95,00,000
         P14
15.      P11     345   25.05.2009        24K-1M      2,70,00,000   Patli Hazipur 89,81,289
16.      P12    1697   09.10.2009          8.5M        5,05,000    Patli Hazipur 95,05,882
17.      P13     885   23.06.2010          12K-      1,42,50,000   Patli Hazipur 95,00,000
18.      P15    2852   04.01.2011         8K-1M       98,00,000    Patli Hazipur 97,39,130
19.      P16    2900   07.01.2011        31K-4M      3,90,00,000   Patli Hazipur 1,00,00,000
20.       R4    2282   18.11.2010          16K        92,00,000    Patli Hazipur 46,00,000
21.       R5    3193   05.10.2011           2K        12,50,000    Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
22.       R6     194   05.05.2009        7K-18M       39,50,000    Patli Hazipur 40,00,000
23.       R7    2312   05.08.2011           4K        25,00,000    Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
24.       R8    3579   31.03.2009        3K-13M       15,97,000    Patli Hazipur 35,00,274
25.       R9    1139   30.07.2009       12K-14M       61,12,000    Patli Hazipur 38,50,079
26.      R10    2121   29.10.2010           4K        23,00,000    Patli Hazipur 46,00,000
27.      R11    2586   11.01.2010       15K-12M       84,00,000    Patli Hazipur 43,07,692
28.      R12    2574   11.01.2010           1K         4,82,000    Patli Hazipur 38,56,000
29.      R13    3236   04.02.2011           2K        11,25,000    Patli Hazipur 45,00,000
30.      R14    3569   09.03.2011       15K-12M       87,75,000    Patli Hazipur 45,00,000
31.      R15    1032   12.07.2010        6K-17M       40,00,000    Patli Hazipur 46,71,533
32.      R16    1720   14.10.2009         1K-2M        5,77,500    Patli Hazipur 42,00,000
33.      R17    1787   27.10.2009         3K-3M       15,16,000    Patli Hazipur 38,50,159
34.      R18    2107   25.11.2009        6K-19M       33,68,750    Patli Hazipur 38.77.698
35.      R19    3530   03.11.2011           2K        12,50,000    Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
36.      R20    2708   25.01.2010       15K-12M       75,07,500    Patli Hazipur 38,50,000
37.      R21    2787   02.09.2011        3K-10M       21,87,500    Patli Hazipur 50,00,000
38.      R22    2546   07.01.2010        4K-12M       22,14,000    Patli Hazipur 38,50,435
39.      R23    2485   08.12.2010        16K-6M       90,84,000    Patli Hazipur 44,58,405
40.      R24    2599   13.01.2010        7K-15M       37,30,000    Patli Hazipur 38,50,323

  5.4           From the careful study of the copies of the sale deeds produced

by the parties, efforts have been made to identify the location of the acquired

land while referring to the rectangle number and khasra numbers of the land

located in the village Patli Hazipur.

8 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

5.5 A careful study of the requisitioned record, it is evident that the

landowners have produced the various layout plans. The layout plan (Ex.P1)

is a final development plan for the controlled area of the Gurugram-Manesar

Urban Complex 2021 AD whereas the layout plan (Ex.P3) is prepared by the

Haryana Government notifying the final development plan for the controlled

area of Gurugram-Manesar Urban Complex 2031 AD. Apart from the

aforesaid, the landowners have also produced a layout plan of the land

located in the villages, namely Dhana, Bawra Bakipur, Patli and Jhorola. On

a careful perusal thereof, it is evident that the acquired land in village Patli

Hazipur is located towards the Southern side of the railway track which goes

from Rewari to Delhi. In fact, the acquired land of village Patli Hazipur is

located in South-West corner of the area of village Patli Hazipur. From the

careful study of the sale deeds produced by the landowners, it is evident that

the landowners have produced the sale deeds bearing No. 549 (Ex.P1),

1911 (Ex.P5/B), 908 (Ex.P10), 345 (Ex.P11), 1697 (Ex.P12), 885 (Ex.P13),

2852 (Ex.P15) and 2900 (Ex.P16) with respect to the land located in village

Patli Hazipur. The sale deeds (Ex.P13, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16) are with respect

to the period post 05.02.2010, i.e. the date of preliminary notification under

Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The sale deed (Ex.P1) pertains to the land

comprised to rectangle No. 91 and 98 location whereof is not reflected in the

layout plan (Ex.P10). There is no evidence to prove that the aforesaid parcel

of land represented by sale deed bearing No. 549 (Ex.P1) is comparable with

the acquired land. The land comprised in rectangle No. 91 and 98 is likely to

be located at a sufficient distance from the acquired land. The sale deed

(Ex.P5/B) is with respect to a tiny sized plot. Similar is the position of the

9 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

sale deed (Ex.P12). The sale deed (Ex.P11) is with respect to the land

comprised in rectangle No. 89 and 91. Whereas the sale deed (Ex.P10)

pertains to rectangle No. 97. On perusal of the award, it is evident that the

land has been acquired out of the rectangle No. 40, 41, 136, 137, 138, 139,

140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151 and 153. No effort

has been made by the landowners to prove that the aforesaid parcels of land

(Ex.P1, Ex.P10, Ex.P11) are with respect to the contemporaneous period and

are comparable parcels of land with the acquired land.

5.6 The learned counsel representing the landowners have relied

upon the sale deeds bearing No. 2147, 3475 and 171 to contend that these

sale deeds are of the comparable parcels of land. From the careful perusal of

the sale deed (Ex.P10), it is evident that the aforementioned sale deeds are

with respect to the village Bawra Bakipur and the parcel of the land sold is

located either on the passage or on the Pataudi-Gurugram Road. This piece

of land is also at a distance of at least 10 acres away from the acquired land.

In the absence of the evidence to prove that the aforesaid sale deeds

represent the comparable parcels of land, it would not be appropriate to rely

upon the same. The learned counsels representing the landowners have also

relied upon the sale deed bearing No. 735, 2737 and 257. These three sale

deeds pertain to the various parcels of land located in village Jadola. These

parcels of land are located near the railway line, however, at a significant

distance from the acquired land. In the absence of evidence of comparable

parcels of land, it would not be safe to rely upon the aforesaid sale deeds.

5.7 On the other hand, the HSIIDC has produced the various sale

deeds of the land located in village Patli Hazipur which show that the price

10 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

of the land at the relevant time was not beyond ₹50,00,000/- per acre. In

fact, sale deed bearing No. 1787 (Ex.R17) is with respect to the land

comprised in rectangle No. 118 and khasra No. 21 and 22 and rectangle No.

119 and khasra No. 1/12, 2, 3 and 9/1. A careful perusal of the layout plan

(Ex.P10) shows that the land comprised in rectangle No.118 abuts the

acquired land comprised in rectangle No. 41. The rectangle No.118 is

located towards the Eastern side of the rectangle No. 41. Thus, it is obvious

that the sale deed (Ex.R17) is with respect to the parcel of land located

nearby to the acquired land. Similarly, the sale deed bearing No. 3579

(Ex.R8) pertains to the land comprised in rectangle No. 133. Whereas the

acquired land is out of the rectangle No. 136, 137 and 138. Hence, the parcel

of land sold through the sale deed (Ex.R8) was also located nearby the

acquired land. In view of the aforesaid sale deeds (Ex.R8 and Ex.R17), it

would not be safe to rely upon the sale instances produced by the

landowners which are either of the land located at a distance or in the

different villages. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the Court

should rely upon the sale deed bearing No. 1542, 1911, 345 and 1697. The

sale deeds bearing No. 1911 and 1697 are with respect to the tiny sized plots.

Whereas there is no evidence that the sale deeds bearing No. 1542 and 345

are with respect to comparable parcels of land with the acquired land.

Similarly, the learned senior counsel representing the landowners has also

relied upon the sale deeds bearing No. 171, 3475, 2755 and 1710. All these

sale instances have already been discussed by the Court. The learned senior

counsel further submits that the Collector's rate in village Judola was less

than the land located in the villages, namely Bawra Bakipur and Patli

11 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

Hazipur. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid argument

cannot be made a basis to assess the market value of the acquired land.

5.8 The learned counsel representing the landowners also relies

upon the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005

(Ex.PX) to the effect that 140 acres of plain agricultural land has been sold

to M/s Instacart Services Private Limited @ ₹3,22,00,000/- per acre and

while the HSIIDC has spent only ₹2,46,00,000/- on its development. At this

stage, it becomes incumbent to carefully examine the information received

under the 2005 Act. It is evident that the HSIIDC published an e-auction

brochure for the warehousing sites in village Patli Hazipur. The e-auction by

way of bidding was to take place on 26.03.2021. In the aforesaid auction, a

single bid has been received with respect to the land measuring 140 acres

from the company M/s Instakart Services Private Limited @ ₹3,22,00,000/-

per acre. The argument of the learned counsel appears to be attractive in the

first blush, however, is found without substance on a deeper scrutiny.

Section 24 of the 1894 Act specifically debars the Court from taking into

consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired which is likely

to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. Section 24 of

the 1894 Act is extracted as under:-

"24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -

But the Court shall not take into consideration -

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

12 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

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 law or opposed to

public policy."

5.9 Moreover, only a single bid has been received. Furthermore, the

aforesaid bid was made in the year 2021 whereas the Court is required to

assess the market value of the acquired land as on 05.02.2010.

5.10 It will be noted here that although the HSIIDC had already

issued notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act to acquire the land for

the construction of Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway in the year 2005,

however, the construction of the aforesaid road started much after the year

2010. It is important to note that the Delhi-Western Peripheral Road,

13 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

namely the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway was not immediately

developed after the land was acquired. In fact, the Manesar-Palwal section

was inaugurated in the month of April, 2016, whereas, the Kundli-Manesar

section, which would be relevant in the present case, was inaugurated in the

month of November, 2018. Moreover, a major portion of the Expressway is

elevated, therefore, unless there is a link road, the prices of the land abutting

the Expressway did not exponentially increase. The prices of the land

increase on account of the better connectivity in the area. This Court had an

opportunity to decide the cases of village Patli Hazipur with respect to the

acquisition of the land for the construction of Kundli-Manesar-Palwal

Expressway in the village Patli Hazipur, the market value of the land was

assessed in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development

Corporation Limited v. Om Dutt and Others (Regular First Appeal No.

421 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021) @ ₹14,50,000/- approximately on the

basis of the policy of the State whereas within a period of five years, the

Collector itself has granted an increase of ₹40,00,000/- per acre on the

amount of ₹14,50,000/- per acre approximately. Thus, there is no error in the

offer made by the LAC.

5.11 The landowners are required to prove by leading the cogent

evidence that the LAC has failed to assess the proper market value of the

acquired land. In the present case, the landowners have miserably failed to

lead material evidence for the determination of market value. In the

additional evidence, the landowners have relied upon the Collector's rates

which are for the purpose of the collection of stamp duty on the sale deeds.

A perusal of Ex.HC1 shows that it is applicable from 11.10.2010. Whereas,

14 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

Ex.HC2 is applicable from 01.04.2011. Similarly, Ex.HC3 is applicable from

01.04.2012. The judgment (Ex.HC4) dated 15.03.2022 has been set aside by

a judgment of even date in Chandan Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs

v. State of Haryana and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 752 of 2022).

Ex.HC5 is an award passed by the LAC with respect to the village Bawra

Bakipur. The LAC has offered to pay @ ₹75,00,000/- per acre in the said

award. In the absence of evidence to prove that the acquired land of village

Bawra Bakipur was comparable with the acquired land of village Patli

Hazipur, the awards (Ex.HC5 and Ex.HC6) cannot be relied upon

particularly when the sale deed (Ex.R8 and Ex.R17) produced by the

HSIIDC prove that the market value of the acquired land was not beyond

₹55,00,000/- per acre as awarded by the LAC.

6. Decision

6.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court is left with

no choice but to dismiss all the appeals filed by the landowners. Resultantly,

all the appeals filed by the landowners are dismissed.

6.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the

appeals, shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 09, 2023 "DK"

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

Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name

1. RFA-369-2022 DAYA RAM AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

2. RFA-672-2022 M/S UMANG LEASING AND CREDIT COMPANY LTD V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

3. XOBJR-74-2022 M/S UMANG LEASING AND CREDIT COMPANY LTD

15 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

4. RFA-673-2022 AMIT THAKRAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

5. XOBJR-75-2022 AMIT THAKRAN AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

6. RFA-485-2022 LALLU RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

7. RFA-486-2022 DHAN RAJ V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

8. RFA-487-2022 JAGDISH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

9. RFA-688-2022 GANGADHAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

10. RFA-689-2022 BABU LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

11. RFA-690-2022 INDRAJ AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

12. RFA-694-2022 TARA CHAND DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

13. RFA-171-2022 VIJAY PAL ALIAS VIJAY PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

14. RFA-156-2022 FATEH SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

15. RFA-158-2022 POHAP SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

16. RFA-154-2022 SHRI BHAGWAN (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

17. RFA-140-2022 SARJEET SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

18. RFA-157-2022 MAHENDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

19. RFA-139-2022 SIS RAM ALIAS SEES RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

20. RFA-2434-2021 RAJ KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

21. RFA-647-2022 JAGDISH CHAND AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

22. RFA-652-2022 RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

23. RFA-653-2022 KARAMBIR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

24. RFA-687-2022 BABU LAL AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

25. RFA-573-2022 RAM NIWAS AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

26. RFA-722-2022 OM PARKASH AND ANR. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

27. RFA-749-2022 VED PRAKASH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

28. RFA-752-2022 CHANDAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

29. RFA-753-2022 RAM CHANDER AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

30. RFA-754-2022 RAMPHAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

16 of 17

And Other Connected Cases

Sr. No. Case No. Party's Name

31. RFA-755-2022 GORDHAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

32. RFA-761-2022 RAM MEHAR AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

33. RFA-786-2022 ARJAN @ ARJUN SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 09, 2023 "DK"

17 of 17