Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meena Kumari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139807
-1-
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 in/and
RFA No. 270 of 2016 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:139807
247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 in/and
RFA No. 270 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 02.11.2023
Meena Kumari and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants / landowners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
The applicants-appellants/landowners, by instituting the
present appeal preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short "the Act"), are seeking modification of the award dated
28.01.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad
(hereinafter to be referred as "Reference Court") for enhancement of
compensation amount.
[2] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance of Haryana Govt.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 07.02.2008, followed by
Notification dated 06.02.2009 under Section 6 thereof, land measuring
59.95 acres, including the land of appellants, situated in the revenue estate
of Village Faridpur, Tehsil & District Faridabad, was acquired. The public
purpose for acquisition of the land was stated to be development and
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139807
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 in/and
RFA No. 270 of 2016 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:139807
utilization as residential and commercial for Sectors 76 to 78, Faridabad.
The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana (for
short "LAC"), vide Award No. 25, dated 04.02.2011, assessed the market
value of acquired land @ Rs. 42,00,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory
benefits.
[3] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested
persons filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which were decided
vide award dated 28.01.2015 by Reference Court, whereby the market
value of the acquired land was enhanced / assessed @ Rs. 1052/- per
square yard besides granting statutory benefits.
[4] Aggrieved thereof, the appellants-landowners preferred the
present appeal, which was disposed off by this Court on 12.05.2016 in
terms of judgment dated 16.09.2015 passed in RFA-7108-2012, titled
"Rampal and others Versus Land Acquisition Collector and another",
thereby awarding compensation @ Rs. 1700/- per square yard. Later on,
some other landowners challenged the judgment passed in Ram Pal's
case (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be set
aside on 06.12.2017 in Civil Appeal No(s) 21014-21016 of 2017, titled
"Premwati & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr.", thereby remanding
the matter back for fresh adjudication.
[5] Again the matter was decided by Single Bench of this Court
vide judgment dated 31.05.2019 passed in case of Rampal (supra),
whereby the market value for the acquired land with regard to the
notification dated 07.02.2008 pertaining to Villages Bhatola, Murtazapur
and Badoli/Baroli, was fixed @ Rs.1551/- per square yard (Rs.75,06,840/-
per acre) and for other three villages i.e. Fajjupur Majra Neemka, Neemka,
Faridpur, the market value was fixed @ Rs.1410/- per square yard (Rs.
68,24,400/- per acre).
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139807
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 in/and
RFA No. 270 of 2016 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:139807
[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 & Anr.
Versus State of Haryana & Ors.", which have been decided on three
different dates, 08.07.2021, 13.07.2021 & 14.07.2021.
[7] Now, by way of application bearing CM No. 4596-CI of 2021
moved on behalf of the applicants-appellants / landowners, who did not
approach the Hon'ble Apex Court, prayer has been made for recalling of the
earlier judgment dated 12.05.2016 and deciding the appeal in terms of
judgment dated 31.05.2019 passed in Rampal's case (supra).
[8] It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants-
appellants / landowners that present appeal is squarely covered with the
judgment dated 14.07.2021 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Banwari Lal's case (supra), arising out of the same notification vide which
the land of applicants-appellants had been acquired.
[9] Upon notice, reply on behalf of respondents-State stood filed,
and, inter alia, prayed for dismissal of the aforesaid application being not
maintainable. However, learned State Counsel does not dispute the afore-
stated factual position about judgment dated 14.07.2021 passed in
Banwari Lal's case (supra); but opposes payment of interest for the
period, the applicants-appellants failed to approach this Court after the
decision of Reference Court.
[10] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
[11] From the records, it is apparent that the present appeal is
squarely covered with the judgment of Banwari Lal's case (supra), which
is arising out of the same acquisition / Notification dated 07.02.2008
covering the same revenue estate i.e. Village Faridpur, Tehsil & District
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139807
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 in/and
RFA No. 270 of 2016 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:139807
Faridabad, whereby the landowners have been held entitled for the
enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs. 1778/- 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. 32 to 34) read as under:-
" Village : Faridpur
Heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the
State of Haryana and Mr. Ranbir Yadav and Mr. Sanchar Anand,
learned counsel for the claimants-landowners.
As regards the land situated in Village Faridpur,
referred to in the second notification, in all, three sale instances
have been relied.
The High Court discarded sale instances Exhibit P-4
dated 06.03.2007 on the finding that the same seems to be
doubtful. Finding of fact so recorded with regard to Exhibit P-4 is
upheld. That leaves us with two more sale instances. The
highest price is Rs.1932/- per sq.yd. in Exhibit P-15 executed on
20.02.2006. This is almost two years before the issuance of
second notification and three months before the issuance of first
notification in respect of lands in and around Village Faridpur.
Therefore, relying on the dictum of this Court in General
Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, (supra), we deem it
appropriate to provide rise of 7.5% per annum. Thus, there will
be addition of 15% to the market price of Rs.1932/- per sq.yd.
That means, the base price plus 15% addition would enhance
per sq.yd. figure to Rs.2222/- (rounded off). After providing 20%
(Rs.444/- rounded off) deduction thereon, as given in other
cases, the fair market price is fixed at Rs.1778/- per sq.yd. in
respect of lands situated at Village Faridpur covered under the
second notification.
Accordingly, we modify the award to the extent of
providing fair market price of land situated in Village
Faridpur at Rs.1778/- (Rupees one thousand seven hundred
seventy-eight only) per sq.yd. (i.e., Rs.1932/- plus Rs.290/-
minus Rs.444/-).
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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139807
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 in/and
RFA No. 270 of 2016 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:139807
allowed to the above extent. Rest of the benefits including
statutory benefits awarded by the High Court shall remain
undisturbed. "
[12] Further, in terms of decision dated 13.11.2021 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 6827-6828 of 2021, titled "Rakesh Kumar Versus State of
Haryana and another" (Diary No. 23358 of 2021), the appellants-
landowners shall not be entitled for interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation for the period from 90th day of judgment dated 12.05.2016
(supra) passed in the main appeal, till the filing of their application bearing
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021, i.e. beyond 10.08.2016.
[13] 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 judgment
dated 13/14.07.2021 in case of Banwari Lal (supra), alongwith all other
statutory benefits and interest thereupon as provided under the Act, except
payment of interest for the period from 90th day of judgment dated
12.05.2016 (supra), till the filing of aforesaid application.
[14] In view of the above discussion, application bearing
CM No. 4596-CI of 2021 is allowed; the earlier order dated 12.05.2016 is
recalled; the main appeal is taken on board today itself and disposed off in
the above terms.
[15] Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off.
November 02, 2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139807
5 of 5
