Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kishan And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 22 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
-1-
CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M); and Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 22.09.2023
Ram Kishan and others
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
(2) CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
Rajender Singh and another
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate
for the applicants- appellants / landowners (in both cases).
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
This order shall dispose off present two appeals bearing
RFA Nos. 1386 & 1389 of 2013, as the same arise out of the common
acquisition / award.
[2] The landowners, by instituting the present appeals
preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M); and Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
"the Act"), are seeking modification of the award dated 27.11.2012
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 dated
01.05.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Act, followed by Notification
dated 30.04.2007 under Section 6 thereof, the land measuring 54.44
acres, including the land of appellants, situated in the revenue estate of
Village Pehladpur, Tehsil & District Faridabad, was acquired. The public
purpose for acquisition of the land was stated to be development of
residential and commercial areas in Sectors 75 & 80, Faridabad. The
Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana (for short
"LAC"), vide Award No. 2, dated 24.04.2009, assessed the market value
of acquired land @ Rs. 16,00,000/- 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 award dated 27.11.2012 by Reference Court,
whereby the market value of the acquired land was enhanced /
assessed @ Rs. 585/- per square yard, besides granting statutory
benefits.
[5] Aggrieved thereof, the landowners preferred their
respective appeals, which were disposed off by this Court 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. 1230/- per square yard alongwith
statutory benefits. Later on, some other landowners challenged the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M); and Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
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.
[6] Again the matter was 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 01.05.2006 pertaining to Village Sihi, which was falling within the
limits of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, the market value was fixed @
Rs. 1351/- per square yard (Rs. 65,38,840/- per acre), whereas for
villages Badoli/Baroli, Sihi, Murtazapur, Pehladpur and Bhatola, those
not falling in the municipal limits, the market value was fixed @ Rs.
1229/- per square yard (Rs. 59,48,360/- per acre).
[7] 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.
[8] Now, by way of filing two applications bearing CM No. 798-
CI of 2023 & CM No. 799-CI of 2023 moved on behalf of the applicants-
appellants in respective appeals, prayer has been made for disposal of
the main appeals in terms of judgment dated 14.07.2021 rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banwari Lal's case (supra).
[9] It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants-
appellants / landowners that present appeals are squarely covered with
the judgment of Banwari Lal's case (supra), arising out of the same
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M); and Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
notification vide which the land of applicants-appellants had been
acquired.
[10] Upon notice of the applications, no reply has been filed;
however, learned State Counsel does not dispute about the main
appeals in terms of judgment of 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.
[11] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book.
[12] Concededly, 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 01.05.2006 covering the same
revenue estate i.e. Village Pehladpur, Tehsil & District Faridabad,
whereby the landowners have been held entitled for the modified amount
of compensation @ Rs. 805/- 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. 14 to 16) read as under:-
" Village : Pehladpur
As regards village Pehladpur, identical factual position
emerges as in the case of Village Badoli.
Even, in respect of this village around the time first
notification dated 01.05.2006 came to be issued, the consistent
market price - as can be discerned from four sale instances -
is around Rs.805.00 per sq.yd. The other two relied upon sale
instances, i.e. Exhibits P-4 and P-15, do indicate the market
price as Rs.2582/- sq.yd. and Rs.2479/- per sq.yd.
respectively. However, these sale instances are for smaller
plots (of only 14K 0M and 10K 6M.) dated 02.05.2006 and
16.05.2006 respectively, by which time the draft proposal for
acquisition was already in place.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M); and Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
Accordingly, these two sale instances need to be
discarded, which crucial aspect has been glossed over by the
High Court.
It necessarily follows that the fair market price in
respect of lands situated within village Pehladpur would
be around Rs.805/- per sq.yd. Nevertheless, we are
inclined to give the same amount of compensation as
given in the case of Village Badoli, referred to above.
Mr. Ranbir Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the
claimant(s), was at pains to point out that the highest price
noted in Exhibit P-4 and P-15 be reckoned and after giving
deduction, appropriate compensation amount can be worked
out.
We find no merits in this submission, as in our view,
the two sale instances need to be discarded.
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
the other set of claimant(s) submits that the lands in question
are situated in developed area, inasmuch as the lands across
the canal have already been developed. This argument does
not commend to us. For, we would proceed on the basis of
relied upon sale instances which have come on record during
the reference proceedings. They represent the true market
value on the date of the Section 4 notification.
As a result, the appeal(s) filed by the State
challenging the enhancement given by the High Court as well
as the cross appeal(s) filed by the claimant(s) for further
enhancement, both are disposed of on the same terms as in
the case of village Badoli concerning the first notification dated
01.05.2006. Rest of the benefits including statutory benefits
awarded by the High Court shall remain undisturbed. "
[12.1] 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 798-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1386 of 2013 (O&M); and Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:125408
CM No. 799-CI of 2023 in/and
RFA No. 1389 of 2013 (O&M)
16.09.2015 (supra) passed in main appeals, till the filing of applications
bearing CM No. 798-CI of 2023 & CM No. 799-CI of 2023, moved by the
applicants-appellants in respective appeals, i.e. beyond 14.12.2015.
[12.2] 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 16.09.2015 (supra), till the filing of aforesaid applications filed in
respective appeals.
[13] In view of the above discussion, both the aforesaid
applications are allowed; the order dated 16.09.2015 is recalled; the
main appeals are taken on board today itself and the same are
disposed off in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off.
September 22, 2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125408
6 of 6
