Hsiidc v. Suraj Mal And ORS
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 07.07.2022 Reserved On: 07.05.2022 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Suraj Mal and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present:
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocates with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocates, for the HSIIDC.
Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satyendra Chauhan and Mr. Jagtar Singh, Advocates. Mr. Jagtar Singh, Mr. Karan Nehra, Ms Sandeep Kaur, Mr. Abhay Josan,Mr. Harvinder Thakur, Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Mr. M.L.Sharma, Mr. Varun Gupta, Mr. J.S.Yadav, Mr. Gulshan Nandwani, Mr. Himanshu Sharma and Mr. Amit Jain, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General, and Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1.
Introduction and Background 1.1 This batch of appeals/cross appeals (details whereof are on the foot of the judgment) calls into question the correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC") on 17.03.2020. The notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") and the awards passed by the
Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") as also by the RC are common. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that this batch of appeals can be decided by a common judgment. 1.2 The relevant particulars, for the purpose of decision of the present case, are as under:- S.NO.
TITLE DETAILS 1.
Date of Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
29.09.2005 2.
Date of Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
15.12.2005 3.
Purpose of Acquisition.
For construction of Express Highway connecting NH-1, 10, 8 and 2.
4.
Location, area and nature of the acquired land Proposing to acquire the land measuring 283 kanals and 7 marlas of land located in village Dingerheri, Tehsil Tauru, District Mewat.
5.
Number and Date of the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector.
No.5 dated 26.05.2006 acquiring the lands comprised in Rectangle No. 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 69 min.
6.
Amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
₹12,50,000/- per acre.
7.
Amount determined by the Reference Court.
The RC, vide award dated 17.03.2020, has assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ₹17,50,000/- per acre while relying upon its award with respect to the land in village Dhulawat which was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 11.12.2007. The RC has also awarded the damages for severance of the land @ 50% of the market value.
1.3 The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HSIIDC") as well as the landowners have filed these appeals.
1.4 On the applications filed under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the LAC referred the matter to the RC for assessment of the market value of the acquired land. It was claimed that the market value of the acquired land is approximately 1,00,00,000/- per acre and the LAC did not take into ₹ consideration the location, nature and the vicinity of the acquired land. It is claimed that the National Highway No.8 and 10 are at a distance of only 6 Kms., whereas, the Industrial Model Town, Manesar (hereinafter referred to as "the IMT") is 10 kms. away from the acquired land. The Gurugram city is only 20 kms. away from the village. Several industries, residential sectors, commercial institutions, farm houses and poultry farms surround the village.
It is also claimed that there is a pucca road leading to the land in question and the LAC has failed to take notice of the fact that the acquired land is located near Tauru city and there existed tube-wells, rooms, barbed wire fencing, underground water pipe lines, valuable trees etc. The LAC also failed to take into consideration that the State Government has already acquired the land in the revenue estates of villages Manesar, Kasan etc. and these areas are located near the acquired land. The landowners also claim that the townships, namely Pataudi, Sohna, Tauru, Nuh, Bhiwari, Manesar and Gurugram city are within a distance around 5 to 30 kms. from the acquired land and the land has great potential for residential and commercial development.
There exist several petrol pumps, markets, resorts, golf courses, factories, farm houses and commercial and educational institutions in Manesar, Pachgaon, Pataudi, Tauru, Bhiwari, Sohna, Nuh, Gurugram and Palwal.
determination. It is stated that the IMT, Manesar is at a significant distance. Moreover, the acquired land is not chahi (giving two crops in a year) land in nature.
1.5 On examination of the pleadings, the RC has framed the following issues:- "1) What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act? OPP.
2) Relief"
2.
Evidence Produced by the Parties 2.1 In oral evidence, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:
Sr. No.
Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness 1.
PW.1 Mohd. Aasam Registration Clerk, to the office of Sub Registrar, Tauru.
2.
PW.2 Chet Ram Petitioner.
3.
PW.3Raj Kumar Petitioner.
4.
PW.4 Birender Gaur Clerk, to the office of District Town Planner, Nuh.
5.
PW.5 Haseen Ahmad Draftsman.
6.
PW.6 Shri Satpal Malik Petitioner.
7.
PW.7 Suresh Kumar Halqa Patwari.
8.
PW.8 Subash Registration Clerk.
2.2 In documentary evidence, the landowners have also produced the following documents:
Sr. No.
Exhibit Number Description of the document 1.
Exh.P1 Sale deed Vasika No.248 dated 8.5.2008 2.
Exh.P2 Sale deed Vasika No.249 dated 8.5.2008 3.
Exh.P3 Sale deed Vasika No.250 dated 8.5.2008 4.
Exh.P4 Sale deed Vasika No.1224 dated 15.9.2005 5.
Exh.P5 Sale deed Vasika No.2008 dated 28.12.2005
Sr. No.
Exhibit Number Description of the document 6.
Exh.P6 Sale deed Vasika No.1409 dated 26.7.2006 7.
Exh.P7 Sale deed Vasika No.1220 dated 4.7.2011 8.
Exh.P8 Sale deed Vasika No.1467 dated 2.8.2006 9.
Exh.P9 Sale deed Vasika No.848 dated 20.7.2005 10.
Exh.P10 Sale deed Vasika No.850 dated 20.7.2005 11.
Exh.P11 Sale deed Vasika No.1357 dated 21.7.2006 12.
Exh.P12 Sale deed Vasika No.3189 dated 29.1.2007 13.
Exh.P13 Geo-referenced base map of Tauru 14.
Exh.P14 K.M.P. Global Corridor site plan 15.
Exh.P15 Application to Tehsildar, Tauru 16.
Exh.P16 Western Resort Country Club 17.
Exh.P17 DLF Gold and Country Club 18.
Exh.P18 Surjivan Resort 19.
Exh.P19 Surjivan Resort 20.
Exh.P20 Surjivan Resort 21.
Exh.P21 Surjivan Resort 22.
Exh.P22 ITC Grand Bharat 23.
Exh.P23 ITC Grand Bharat 24.
Exh.P24 Tarudhan Valley Golf Resort 25.
Exh.P25 Tarudhan Valley Golf Resort 26.
Exh.P26 Tarudhan Valley Golf Resort 27.
Exh.P27 Tarudhan Valley Golf Resort 28.
Exh.P28 Tarudhan Valley Golf Resort 29.
Exh.P29 Tarudhan Valley Golf Resort 30.
Exh.P30 Map 31.
Exh.P31 Aks Sizra of village Dingerheri 32.
Exh.P32 Sale deed Vasika No.3025 dated 29.3.2019 33.
Exh.P32 (Marked twice) Draft Development Plan 2021 A.D 34.
Exh.P33 Site Plan of the acquired land of village Dingerheri 35.
Exh.P34 Sale deed Vasika No.848 dated 20.7.2005 36.
Exh.P35 Sale deed Vasika No.1524 dated 26.10.2005 37.
Exh.PX Certified copy of award dated 5.2.2020 38.
Exh.PY Certified copy of award dated 24.2.2020 2.3 On the other hand, in oral evidence, the HSIIDC has examined the following witnesses:
Sr. No.
Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness
1.
RW.1 Deen Mohammad Patwari.
2.
RW.2 Subash Registration Clerk.
2.4 In documentary evidence, the HSIIDC also produced the following documents:- Sr. No.
Exhibit Number Description of the document 1.
Exh.R1 Sale deed Vasika No.1760 dated 28.2.2005 2.
Exh.R2 Sale deed Vasika No.949 dated 11.8.2005 3.
Exh.R3 Sale deed Vasika No.845 dated 20.7.2005 4.
Exh.R4 Sale deed Vasika No.1308 dated 8.11.2004 5.
Exh.R5 Judgment dated 13.6.2009 6.
Exh.R6 Proceedings of the Divisional Level Committee's Meeting for fixation of Market rate of the acquired land 7.
Exh.R7 Collector rate for the year 2005-06 8.
Exh.R8 Sale deed Vasika No.698 dated 29.6.2005 9.
Exh.R9 Sale deed Vasika No.1619 dated 9.11.2005 10.
Exh.R10 Sale deed Vasika No.1645 dated 18.8.2006 11.
Exh.R11 Sale deed Vasika No.1126 dated 5.9.2005 12.
Exh.R12 Sale deed Vasika No.1491 dated 23.12.2004 13.
Exh.R13 Sale deed Vasika No.1409 dated 14.10.2005 14.
Exh.R14 Sale deed Vasika No.2123 dated 10.1.2006 15.
Exh.R15 Sale deed Vasika No.73 dated 10.4.2006 16.
Exh.R16 Sale deed Vasika No.74 dated 10.4.2006 17.
Exh.R17 Sale deed Vasika No.2120 dated 10.1.2006 18.
Exh.R18 Sale deed Vasika No.2121 dated 10.1.2006 19.
Exh.R19 Sale deed Vasika No.1738 dated 28.8.2006 20.
Exh.R20 Sale deed Vasika No.1758 dated 25.11.2005 21.
Exh.R21 Sale deed Vasika No.1211 dated 14.9.2005 22.
Exh.R22 Collector rate for the year 2004-05 23.
Exh.R23 Collector rate for the year 2005-06 24.
Exh.R24 Collector rate for the year 2006-07 25.
Exh.R24 (Marked twice) Aks Sizra of village Dingerheri.
3.
On a careful reading of the judgment passed by the RC, it is evident that after rejecting all the sale deeds produced by the respective parties including Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, the RC proceeded to rely upon the RC's award dated 12.09.2012 in LA case No.21 of 2009/2011 titled as "Jitender
etc. Vs. State of Haryana etc." passed while assessing the market value of the acquired land in village Dhulawat as on 11.12.2007. At the outset, it must be noticed that the aforesaid judgment of the RC dated 12.09.2012 is not a part of the record of the RC which was requisitioned. The learned counsel representing the parties have admitted that this document is not part of the Court file.
4.
Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book as well as the record of the Reference Court, which was requisitioned. 5.
The learned senior counsel representing the HSIIDC contends that the RC has committed the following errors: i) The sale deeds (Ex.R1 and Ex.R2) have wrongly been ignored on the ground that these sale deeds reflect a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC, in view of the bar under Section 25 of the 1894 Act.
ii) The RC has erred in relying upon its previous judgment with respect to the acquisition of land in village Dhulawat, in the absence of evidence to prove that the acquired lands of the villages, namely Dhulawat and Dingerheri were comparable. It has also been contended that the judgment passed by the RC dated 12.09.2012 has not been produced by any of the parties in evidence. 6.
Per contra, the learned counsel representing the landowners pray for enhancement of the market value on the ground that the RC has committed an error in overlooking the evidence produced by the parties.
7.
Issues which arise for adjudication 7.1 In view of the aforesaid respective arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties, the following issues require adjudication: i) What was the appropriate market value of the acquired land on 29.09.2005 i.e. the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act?
ii) Is it appropriate to rely upon the assessment made by the RC with respect to the acquisition of a different parcel of land by a separate notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, which was issued after a period of more than 2 years from the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in the present case, more particularly when neither the copy of the judgment passed by the Court while deciding the cases arising from the separate notification is made a part of the record nor there is evidence to prove the comparative location of respective parcels of the acquired land through these notifications?
iii) What should be the compensation for severance in case the land remaining with the owner stands bifurcated in more than two or more parcels due to the acquisition of the land for the construction of a highway?
8.
At this stage, it may be appropriate to note that the RC has compiled the information with regard to exemplar sale deeds produced by both the parties, correctness whereof is not disputed by the learned counsel representing the parties. Hence, the same is extracted as under:-
Sr.
No.
Exhibit No.
Vasika No.
Dated Sale Consideration (In Rs.) Land Sold (K M S) Rate per acre Village 1.
P1 8.5.2008 3,23,43,750 34-10-0 75,00,000 Jhamuwas 2.
P2 8.5.2008 1,87,50,000 20-0-0 75,02,400 Jhamuwas 3.
P3 8.5.2008 93,27,750 9-19-0 74,99,698 Jhamuwas 4.
P4 15.9.2005 12,00,000 1-6-0 73,84,615 Tauru 5.
P5 28.12.2005 6,70,000 1-1-0 51,04,761 Tauru 6.
P6 26.7.2006 65,00,000 3-8-0 1,52,94,117 Tauru 7.
P7 4.7.2011 10,18,87,500 66-0-0 1,23,50,000 Tauru 8.
P8 2.8.2006 3,49,87,500 62-4-0 45,00,000 Fatehpur 9.
P9 20.7.2005 38,56,250 1B-10B0B 41,13,333 Gangani 10.
P10 20.7.2005 18,96,875 0B-12B0B 50,58,333 Gangani 11.
P11 21.7.2006 55,00,000 1B-12B0B 55,00,000 Gangani 12.
P12 29.1.2007 1,00,09,632 2B-7B0B 68,15,068 Gangani 13.
P32 29.3.2019 17,28,000 0-12-0 2,30,40,000 Tauru 14.
P34 20.7.2005 38,56,250 1B-10B0B 41,13,333 Gangani 15.
P35 26.10.2005 3,00,000 0-3-0 1,60,00,000 Tauru 16.
R1 28.2.2005 9,50,000 33-12-0 2,26,190 Dingerheri 17.
R2 11.8.2005 4,83,000 17-10-0 2,20,800 Dingerheri 18.
R3 20.7.2005 6,60,000 24-0-0 2,20,000 Gudhi 19.
R4 8.11.2004 12,10,000 43-18-0 2,20,501 Gudhi 20.
R8 29.6.2005 7,58,875 53-1-0 1,14,439 Sabras 21.
R9 9.11.2005 4,20,000 4-13-0 7,22,580 Tauru 22.
R10 18.8.2006 6,00,000 8-0-0 6,00,000 Goyala 23.
R11 5.9.2005 60,000 3-8-0 1,41,176 Bissar Akbarpur 24.
R12 23.12.2004 60,000 2-0-0 2,40,000 Sabras 25.
R13 14.10.2005 2,31,875 5-6-0 3,50,000 Tauru 26.
R14 10.1.2006 4,50,000 6-7-0 5,66,929 Tauru 27.
R15 10.4.2006 17,11,000 10-19-0 12,50,045 Goyala 28.
R16 10.4.2006 71,50,000 72-0-0 7,94,444 Goyala 29.
R17 10.1.2006 5,00,000 9-13-0 4,14,507 Goyala 30.
R18 10.1.2006 58,000 0-19-0 4,88,421 Dingerheri 31.
R19 28.8.2006 4,00,000 8-3-0 3,92,688 Gudhi 32.
R20 25.11.2005 3,96,000 7-11-0 4,19,602 Gudhi
33.
R21 14.9.2005 2,35,000 6-17-0 2,74,452 Sabras 9.
Discussion by this Court:
Issue No. (I) 9.1 On a careful perusal of the aforementioned tabulated compilation, it is evident that the landowners have not produced any comparable sale exemplar to prove that the market value of the acquired land assessed by the LAC does not reflect the correct market value. The learned counsel representing the landowners have submitted that the town of Tauru, located nearby and the Court should have relied upon the sale deeds (Ex.P4 to Ex.P7).
9.2 During the consolidation of the land holdings in the villages/revenue estate under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1953, the total land of the village is divided into Rectangles which consists of 25 acres of land each. Each Rectangle is assigned a numerical number starting from 1. As per the practice, which is uniformly followed, Rectangle No.1 is assigned to North Eastern Corner of the village and the assigned number increase in a strip of land having depth, equivalent to 5 acres towards South Eastern boundary of the village, then the assigned numbers keep increasing from the South Eastern side of the village towards the North Eastern side, again, in a strip of land having depth of 5 acres abutting the previous strip of land towards the Western side of the previous strip of land. (In other words, the assigned Rectangle numbers increase in spiral manner similar to the numbers assigned to each box in the game of Snakes and Ladder). 9.3 It would be noted here that the acquired land is comprised in
rectangle numbers noticed in the relevant particulars in para 1.2. The sale deed (Ex.R1) is with respect to more than 4 acres of land, which forms a part of the land comprised in rectangle No.4 and 5. The land has been sold @ ₹2,26,180/- per acre on 28.02.2005, whereas, the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published on 29.09.2005. Furthermore, on a careful perusal of sale deed dated 11.08.2005 (Ex.R2), it is evident that 17 kanals and 10 marlas of land out of the land comprised in rectangle Nos. 17, 18 and 20 has been sold @ ₹ 2,20,000/- per acre. This is hardly 11⁄2 month before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The parcels of the land sold through Ex.R1 and R2, respectively, are with respect to parcels of land in close proximity with the acquired land. The rectangle is a unit of agricultural land measuring 5 X 5 acres equivalent to 25 acres. These sale deeds are relevant in deciding the issue No.(i) i.e. the appropriate market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 29.09.2005.
9.4 Now, let us examine the evidence produced by the landowners except the sale deeds. On a careful perusal of the tabulated information compiled, which has been extracted above in para 8 the landowners have relied upon Ex.PX (certified copy of award dated 05.12.2020) and Ex.PY (certified copy of the award dated 24.02.2010). These two awards are with respect to the acquisition of the land in villages Goela and Rewasan. In the absence of evidence to prove that the acquired land located in the aforesaid two villages was comparable with the acquired land in village Dingerheri, the RC has correctly refused to rely upon the same. This Court also does not find any error in the order passed by the RC on this ground.
9.5 However, the RC has erred on the following grounds: i) The sale deeds (Ex.R1 and Ex.R2) produced by the HSIIDC have wrongly been ignored on the ground that Section 25 of the 1894 Act bars the Court from taking into account the sale deeds which reflect a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. This matter is no longer res integra. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Lal Chand vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769. Thus, the RC has committed an error in ignoring the aforesaid sale deeds, particularly when it has already been held that the only prohibition on the enabling power of the Court is to award an amount lesser than the amount assessed by the LAC.
ii) The RC has relied upon its own award dated 12.09.2012 (Jitender etc. Vs. State of Haryana etc.) with respect to the acquisition of land in village Dhulawat. The RC has relied upon the same without noticing that such judgment is not a part of the record. The Court has relied upon the same merely on the ground that the acquired land of village Dhulawat has almost similar surroundings and accessibility as that of the acquired land of village Dingerheri. The Court has held that both the villages are similarly situated at around 5 to 15 kms. away from the National Highway No.248 and both the villages are located on the interior belt of villages. Thus, the RC has
committed an error in relying upon a document which has not been produced by any of the parties. On a perusal of the record sent by the RC, it is evident that there is no reference to the award dated 12.09.2012. In fact, the date of assessment in these cases and the case arising from acquisition of land in village Dhulowal are also different.
9.6 As regards the first argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners, it would be noted that the RC has already held that the sale exemplars of the town of Tauru are not reliable because the acquired land is located in a village, whereas Tarau is a small town. Furthermore, the sale exemplars (Ex.P4 and Ex.P5) are with respect to very small pieces of land, whereas the sale exemplars (Ex.P6 and Ex.P7) are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 9.7 Before proceeding to reassess the market value of the acquired land, the Court is required to come to a definite conclusion that there is some material evidence which proves that the assessment of the market value made by the LAC is erroneous. In the present case, a long narrow strip of land has been acquired for the construction of a national highway.
Hence, the reliance being placed by the learned counsel representing the landowners on the award passed by the RC with respect to the acquired land in villages Goela and Rewasan is misplaced. In the present case, it is evident that there is no evidence produced by the landowners on the basis whereof, the Court can proceed to enhance the market value of the acquired land from what was offered by the LAC.
9.8 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court comes to a conclusion that the RC has erred in enhancing the market value of the acquired land from 12,50,000/- to 17,50,000/-. Therefore, the appropriate ₹ ₹ market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act i.e. 29.09.2005 is 12,50,000/- as assessed by the LAC. ₹ Hence, the issue No.(i) stands answered.
Issue No. (ii) 9.9 It is well settled that before the Court relies upon some documentary evidence so as to assess the market value, the Court is required to see as to whether such document is part of the file or not. The Court is also required to see as to whether the land sold through the sale deed is comparable with the acquired land or not. In the absence of such finding, it is not safe to rely upon the same. As already noticed, the landowners have failed to produce any sale instance of the acquired land located in village Dingerheri.
9.10 As per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1872 Act"), the judgments of the Courts are relevant only in accordance with Section 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the 1872 Act. Section 40 of the 1872 Act provides that a previous judgment which operates as bar to a second suit or trial is relevant. Section 41 of the 1872 Act provides that the judgments, orders or decrees of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, are relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title
of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Section 42 of the 1872 Act is in the nature of a residuary provision, which provides that the judgments, which are not relevant under Section 41, but they relate to the matters of public nature which are relevant to the inquiry, shall be relevant, but shall not be a conclusive proof of the fact which they state. Section 43 of the 1872 Act provides that all other judgments, except those mentioned in Section 40 to 42 of the 1872 Act shall be irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the 1872 Act. If we analyze the judgment passed by the RC on 12.09.2012, it is obvious that a previous judgment is not relevant and does not fall within the scope of Section 40, 41, 42 or 43 of the 1872 Act.
Furthermore, as per the observations made by the RC, the aforesaid judgment is with respect to notification issued on 11.12.2007, which is more than 2 years after the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued vide notification dated 29.09.2005. The aforesaid assessment made by the Court shall not be relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land on 29.09.2005. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that the acquired land of village Dhulawat was comparable with the acquired land in the present case. Thus, the second issue is answered in negative.
Issue No. (iii) 9.11 The third issue which arises for consideration has already been noticed above. A narrow strip of land has been acquired for constructing an express highway. The landowners have claimed damages for severance/bifurcation of their land into two or more parcels. It has been projected that due to acquisition of the narrow strip of land, the remaining
land of certain landowners is located on both the sides of expressway. The RC, after relying upon the judgments passed in State of Haryana v. Rajinder Kumar 2000 (1) LACC 360 and Smt.Bindu Garg v. State of Haryana 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 261 has assessed the damages on account of severance @ 50%. It would be noted here that there is no clarity as to whether such amount @ 50% is with respect to the acquired land or unacquired land. Moreover, the Court has not analyzed the evidence to prove the damages, if any, suffered by the landowners. The RC has committed an error in blindly following the judgment passed by the Court without analyzing its facts. In Rajinder Kumar's case (supra), the land was acquired for construction of a railway over-bridge.
The market value of the acquired land located adjacent to the railway over-bridge was substantially reduced due to difficulty in accessing the unacquired remnant land. In that context, the Court awarded 50% compensation for the remaining unacquired land. Similarly, in Smt.Bindu Garg's case (supra), the Court found that the remaining unacquired land has been rendered completely inaccessible and has resulted in complete loss. In that context, the Court awarded 50% of the market value on account of damages suffered due to severance of the unacquired land. In the present case, no evidence to assess the quantum of damages, on account of severance, has been led. The judgments relied upon by the RC were not applicable.
However, this Court cannot overlook that the landowners must have suffered some amount of damages or loss on account of severance or the bifurcation of the unacquired land into two or more parcels. With respect to similar acquisition of land for the same expressway i.e.
HSIIDC vs. Rattan Singh and Others ( RFA-5620-2013, decided on 05.10.2021), held as under:- "The next issue which requires adjudication is regarding the proper and appropriate compensation/damages for the severance of the land in two parts. Clause (3) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, enables the Court to order the payment of the damage sustained by the person on account of severance from other land. In the present case, the acquisition of the aforementioned land is for the construction of the express highway. A long strip of land has been acquired. In the cases arising from village Mehndipur, the official of the HSIIDC has himself admitted that the land of various owners stands divided in two independent unconnected parcels due to the compulsory acquisition of the land.
Although, the land owners have failed to lead any evidence to prove the extent of loss/damage suffered by them, even in that case, it is clear cut/indisputable that the owners would have difficulty in accessing the parcels of separate land across the road. Some of the land owners may have been left with only a small portion on one side of the road, whereas remaining part is on the other side of the road. In any case, it would become uneconomical and hard to cultivate and irrigate a small piece of land which is left on the one side of the Road.
damages for severance of the land to the extent of 20% with regard to market value of the acquired or unacquired land whichever is less. The State or the HSIIDC have not filed any appeals. In other words, they have accepted the judgments. The HSIIDC has filed appeals in the cases arising from the acquisition made at village Mehndipur, where surprisingly the same Presiding Judge has ordered the 50% of the market value of the acquired land towards the severance charges. In this case, Chand Singh appeared as PW1 on behalf of the land owners. He did not depose about the loss suffered by the owners on account of severance of the unacquired land. However, when Bhagwan Singh Rana deposed on behalf of HSIIDC, he admitted that Smt. Bala, Balraj, Dharam Singh, Kapoor Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Ram Singh, Priti Singh and Munshi etc.
have suffered loss on account of the fact that their unacquired/remaining land stands sundered due to the construction of the road (Expressway). In other words, these owners are now left with unacquired land which is in two separate independent parcels. They will be required to make special arrangements for irrigation and cultivation of land in the both the parcels of land situated on both the sides of the road which will be a hardship to them. Hence, the Court cannot deprive the owners from damages on account of the severance, merely because the owners have failed to lead any evidence to prove the extent of loss/damages suffered by them.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the owners have suffered damages to the extent of 50% of the market value of the acquired land. Furthermore, there is no appeal by the State and the HSIIDC in the appeals arising from the acquisition made at village Daboda Khurd.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeals filed by the HSIIDC are allowed to the extent that the owners of villages Mehendipur shall also be entitled to the damages for severance of the land to the extent of 20% of the market value of the acquired or unacquired land whichever is less. However, the Executing Court is directed to ascertain as to whether the land of a particular owner stood bisected or not, before ordering the payment of damages for the severance of the land. The learned counsel representing the owners have relied upon the judgments passed in Narender Kaur and Gurbachan Singh (supra). In both the judgments, the Court after coming to a conclusion that some part of the acquired land is virtually lost as it is rendered inaccessible and uneconomical, assessed the severance charges at @ 50%.
As already noticed in this case, no such evidence has been led by the landowners to prove that fact. In these cases, it has come on record that the unacquired land of certain owners stands separated/bisected into two different parcels due to construction of the road". 9.12 Following the aforesaid view, the landowners shall also be entitled to damages for severance on the same lines.
also substantially answered.
9.13 Further, this Court affirm the observation of the RC that damages for severance or the compensation on account of severance shall only be granted in regard to the land comprised in khasra numbers, which have been severed on account of acquisition and the remnant land is less than an acre.
10.
Decision:
10.1 Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the award passed by the RC is set aside and the market value as assessed by the LAC is maintained, except the modification in the amount of damages on account of severance of the land.
10.2 Consequently, the appeals filed by the HSIIDC are allowed, whereas, that of the landowners shall stand dismissed. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals, shall stand disposed of. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 07, 2022 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr. No.
Case No.
Party's Name 1.
RFA No.4 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Smt Bimla Devi and others 2.
RFA No.5 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Janak Raj and others 3.
RFA No.6 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Partap Singh deceased through LRs and others 4.
RFA No.11 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Suraj Mal and others 5.
RFA No.12 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Raj Kumar and others 6.
RFA No.13 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Smt Shanti Devi and others 7.
RFA No.14 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Mehtab Singh and others 8.
RFA No.15 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Ramotar @ Leelya and others 9.
RFA No.16 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Ram Kala and others 10.
RFA No.17 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Raj Kumar and others 11.
RFA No.18 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Sushil Kumar and others 12.
RFA No.19 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Sushil Kumar and others 13.
RFA No.20 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Har Lal and others 14.
RFA No.21 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Madan Lal and others 15.
RFA No.22 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Chet Ram and others 16.
RFA No.23 of 2021 Haryana State Industrial and infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Sector 6, Panchkula (HSIIDC) through its AGM.
Versus Ram Kala and others 17.
RFA No.1543 of 2021 Ram Kala through his LRs Versus State of Haryana and others 18.
RFA No.1544 of 2021 Ram Kala through his LRs Versus State of Haryana and others 19.
RFA No.1224 of 2021 Ram Kala through his LRs Versus State of Haryana and others (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 07, 2022 "DK"