Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar Mittal Through His Lrs vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:146844
-1-
RFA No. 1042 of 2022 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:146844
267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No. 1042 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.11.2023
Vijay Kumar Mittal (Deceased) through his LRs
...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate
for the appellants - landowners.
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-2578-CI-2012
Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of
1978 days in filing the appeal.
Upon notice, no reply has been filed; however, learned State
Counsel opposes the prayer made in the application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the contents of the application, which has been supported by Smt. Deepti
Mittal, who is one of the legal representatives of deceased-Vijay Kumar
Mittal.
Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining
to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the
modified enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the acquired land
falling in same revenue estate(s), in view of judgment dated 30.10.2015
passed in RFA-9821-2014, titled "Baru and others Versus State of
Haryana", which stood attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:146844
RFA No. 1042 of 2022 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:146844
Based thereupon, applying the principles of parity, besides
awarding of just and fair compensation and relying upon the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead)
through LRs Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another",
2020 (19) SCC 599 as well as in view of the contents of application, the
same is allowed and delay of 1978 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned, subject to denial of interest for the delayed period.
MAIN APPEAL
Present appeal has been preferred under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), to modify the award dated
25.07.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind (hereinafter to
be referred as "Reference Court") seeking enhancement of compensation
amount.
[2] Briefly, the facts are that in pursuance to Haryana Govt.
Notification dated 09.09.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act, followed by
Notification dated 08.09.2003 issued under Section 6 thereof, the land
measuring 307.77 out of 380.11 acres, situated in the area of Village Jind,
Hadbast No. 79 and 95.25 out of 98.89 acres of land in Village Haibatpur,
Hadbast No. 72, Tehsil & District Jind, for development and utilization
thereof as residential and commercial Sectors 6, 7, 8 & 9 at Jind, was
acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector, Jind (for short "LAC") vide Award
No. 6 dated 06.09.2005, assessed the market value of the acquired land of
revenue estate Jind @ ` 10 lacs per acre for near the road upto one acre
depth and ` 7 lacs per acre for the remaining land. Vide Award No. 7, dated
06.09.2005, the LAC awarded compensation @ ` 6 lacs per acre for the
land near the road upto one acre depth and ` 5.50 lacs per acre for the
remaining land of Village Haibatpur.
[3] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award Nos. 6 & 7, dated
06.09.2005, landowners / interested persons filed objections under Section
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:146844
RFA No. 1042 of 2022 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:146844
18 of the Act, which were decided vide award dated 30.08.2008 by
Reference Court, whereby the market value of the acquired land pertaining
to Village Jind was determined @ ` 8 lacs per acre for the land situated
beyond one acre from the road and ` 12 lacs per acre for the land situated
upto one acre depth from the road, as also for Nehri, Chahi and Gair
Mumkin land. Also, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the
acquired land pertaining to Village Haibatpur @ ` 6 lacs per acre for the
land situated beyond one acre depth from the road and ` 7 lacs per acre for
the land situated upto one acre depth from the road.
[4] Aggrieved with the award dated 30.08.2008 (supra) passed by
the Reference Court, the parties approached this Court in a batch of
appeals, which came to be disposed off on 21.08.2013, lead case of which
was RFA No. 5823 of 2008, titled "Santosh Devi and others Versus
State of Haryana and another", thereby remitting the cases back to the
Reference Court, for fresh adjudication.
[5] On remand, the matter was decided by Reference Court vide
award dated 25.07.2014, whereby the market value for the acquired land in
the revenue estate of Jind relating to Award No. 6, was assessed @
` 8,47,000/- per acre for the land situated beyond one acre from the road
and ` 11,02,000/- per acre for the land situated upto one acre depth from
the metaled roads i.e. Somnath Mandir Road, Shaheed Udham Singh
Marg, Jind-Safidon road, for Nehri, Chahi and Gair Mumkin kinds of land.
Further, for the land of revenue estate of Village Haibatpur relating to
Award No. 7, the compensation was assessed @ ` 6,78,000/- per acre for
the land situated beyond one acre from the Safidon Road and Jind-
Haibatpur Road; ` 8,82,000/- per acre for the land situated upto one acre
depth situated / abutting on Jind-Safidon road of Village Haibatpur and `
8,14,000/- per acre for the land situated upto one acre depth on each side
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:146844
RFA No. 1042 of 2022 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:146844
of Jind-Habitpur road of Village Haibatpur. Still dissatisfied, the appellants-
landowners filed the present appeal.
[6] Aggrieved thereof, appeals preferred by some other
landowners, were disposed off by this Court on 30.10.2015, lead case of
which was RFA No. 9821 of 2014, titled "Baru and others Versus State
of Haryana", thereby assessing compensation @ ` 350/- per square yard
for the land just abutting the road, whereas the value for the land beyond
the depth of two acres from the road, was assessed @ ` 250/- per square
yard, irrespective of quality of land, apart from other statutory benefits.
[7] It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that
present appeal is squarely covered with the judgment dated 30.10.2015
passed in case of Baru and others (supra), arising out of the same
notification, vide which the land of appellants had been acquired.
[8] Learned State Counsel is not in a position to controvert the
above factual position; however, opposes the payment of interest for the
period, the appellants failed to approach this Court after the decision of
Reference Court. He also submits that even the SLP No(s). 29464-29472
of 2016 arising out of order dated 30.10.2015 (supra), filed at the instance
of landowner(s), stood dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2017 passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme 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 appeal is
squarely covered with the judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed in case of
Baru and others (supra), which is arising out of the same acquisition /
Notification dated 09.09.2002 covering the same revenue estates of Village
Jind and Haibatpur, Tehsil & District Jind, whereby the landowners have
been held entitled for the modified amount of compensation. For reference,
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:146844
RFA No. 1042 of 2022 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:146844
relevant paras-29 & 30 of judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed in case of
Baru and others (supra) reads as under:-
" 29. In view of my aforesaid discussions, in my
opinion, the value of the land just abutting the road
deserves to be assessed @ ` 350/- per square yard,
whereas the land which is beyond the depth of 2 acres
from the road deserves to be assessed @ ` 250/- per
square yard, irrespective of quality of land as the land
being chahi or barani looses its significance once it is fit
for urbanisation.
30. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory
benefits available under the Act. "
[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 judgment
dated 30.10.2015 in case of Baru and others (supra), alongwith all other
statutory benefits and interest thereupon as provided under the Act, except
payment of interest for the period the appellants did not approach this Court
after passing of Reference Court's Award.
[11] Disposed off in the above terms.
[12] Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed off.
November 20, 2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:146844
5 of 5
