Rattan Lal v. State Of Haryana And Others
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH (1) Cross Objection No. 122 of 2021 in/and RFA No. 1236 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.08.2023 Rattan Lal (now deceased) through LRs and others ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
(2) Cross Objection No. 54 of 2023 (O&M) in/and RFA No. 1237 of 2021 (O&M) Hari Chand and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
(3) RFA No. 2018 of 2021(O&M) The State of Haryana and others ...Appellants
Versus
Hari Chand and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:
Mr. Chirag Kundu, Advocate for the appellant(s)/landowner(s) (in RFA-1236-2019) Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellants / landowners (in RFA-1237-2021);
-2-
for the applicants-cross objectors / respondent Nos. 4 to 26 (in RFA-1236-2019); and for contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (in RFA-2018-2021) Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants (in RFA-2018-2021) and for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (in RFA-1236-2019; RFA-1237-2021) Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate for the applicants-cross objectors/private respondents (in RFA-1237-2021); and for pro forma respondent Nos. 7 to 12 (in RFA-2018-2021) **** HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM-3559-CI-2023 in Cross Objection-54-2023 in RFA-1237-2021 Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the applicants-cross objectors / landowners-private respondents is for condonation of delay of 393 days in re-filing the cross-objections. Notice of the application.
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the non-applicants / appellants and learned State Counsel representing the non-applicants / respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State, accept notice; however, learned State Counsel vehemently 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 the affidavit of respondent No. 4-Harbans.
Concededly, the other similarly situated landowners pertaining to the same acquisition proceedings have already been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation pertaining to the acquired land falling in the same revenue estate, i.e. Village Faijupur Majra Neemka, Tehsil & District Faridabad, to the tune of Rs. 2509/- per square yard, in view of judgment dated 13/14.07.2021
-3-
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2903 of 2021, titled "Banwari Lal & Anr. Versus State of Haryana & Ors.". Based thereupon, applying the principle of parity, besides awarding 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 prayer is allowed and delay in re-filing the crossobjections, as mentioned above, is hereby condoned, subject to denial of interest for the period of delay in re-filing the crossobjections. MAIN APPEAL(S) This order shall dispose off present three appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1236 of 2019; 1237 of 2021 & 2018 of 2021, as the same arise out of common acquisition.
[2] The landowners, by instituting the RFA Nos. 1236 of 2019 & 1237 of 2021 preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), are seeking modification of the awards dated 09.02.2017 & 31.01.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as "Reference Court") for enhancement of compensation amount, whereas in RFA No. 2018 of 2021, the State of Haryana seeks setting aside the award dated 31.01.2020 passed by Reference Court and prayed for restoration of award of the Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad (for short "LAC").
-4-
[3] In the cross-objections filed by the landowners, they are also seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.
[4] In pursuance of Haryana Govt. Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 14.08.2008, followed by Notification dated 30.08.2008 under Section 6 thereof, the land measuring 69.46 acres, including the land of appellant(s) / landowner(s), situated in the revenue estate of Village Faijupur Majra Neemka, Tehsil & District Faridabad, was acquired. The public purpose for acquisition of the land was stated to be Development & Utilization of Master Plan Roads of Sectors 75 to 89, Faridabad. The LAC, vide Award No. 11, dated 27.08.2010, assessed the market value of acquired land @ Rs. 42,00,000/- per acre alongwith other statutory benefits. [5] Dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, landowners / interested persons filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, which was decided vide awards dated 09.02.2017 & 31.01.
2020 by learned Reference Court(s), whereby the market value of the acquired land was enhanced / assessed @ Rs. 1870/- & 1760/- per square yard in respective appeals, besides granting statutory benefits. [6] It may be added here that in the original references of present appeals, there was a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation qua which a compromise was arrived at between the parties before the Reference Court itself; thus, the same does not survive at this stage in the said appeals; therefore, the matter only relates to enhancement of compensation.
-5-
[7] It is pertinent to mention here that the matters pertaining to the enhancement were remanded by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No(s) 21014-21016 of 2017, titled "Premwati & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr.", decided on 06.12.2017, after those were decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the first round on 16.09.2015 in case of 'Rampal and others Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another', 2016 (1) RCR (Civil) 494. Thereafter, the matter was again 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 14.08.2008 pertaining to Villages Neemka, Fajjupur Majra Neemka, Kheri Khurd, Faridpur, Kheri Kalan, Bhupani, Riwajpur and Tikawali, was fixed @ Rs. 1760/- per square yard (Rs. 85,18,400/- per acre).
[8] 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. [9] It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant(s) / landowners that present appeals are squarely covered with the judgment of Banwari Lal's case (supra), arising out of the same notification vide which the land of appellants was acquired.
-6-
landowners 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] From the perusal of records, it is apparent that 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 14.08.2008 covering the same revenue estate i.e. Village Faijupur Majra Neemka, Tehsil & District Faridabad, whereby the landowners have been held entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs. 2509/- 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. 55 to 57) read as under:- " Village : Fajjupur Majra Neemka Heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the State of Haryana and Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-landowners.
As regards the lands situated at village Fajjupur Majra Neemka, covered under the third notification dated 14.08.2008, the High Court has awarded Rs.1760/- per sq.yd. as the fair market price.
The claimants have relied on five sale instances executed between May 2006 until May 2008. In our opinion, the thumb rule of mean can be applied, for determining the fair market price of the lands in question. For determining the mean of the five sale instances, we reckon the consideration amount noted therein as follows: - (i) dated 10.05.2006 for Rs.1404/- per sq.yd., (ii) dated 16.05.2006 for Rs.2892/- per sq.yd., (iii) dated 03.08.2006 for Rs.2685/- per sq.yd.,
-7-
(iv) dated 08.08.2006 for Rs.2727/- per sq.yd.; and (v) dated 16.05.2008 for Rs.1653/- per sq.yd. The mean amount would come to Rs.2272/-. It needs to be underscored that lands in village Fajjupur Majra Neemka were also covered under the second notification (dated 07.02.2008). In reference to the sale instances relied upon therein, after applying the thumb rule of mean, the amount has been worked out as Rs.2727/- per sq.yd., as can be seen from the earlier part of this order.
Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to apply the same rate to the lands situated in the same village covered under the third notification (dated 14.08.2008), which had been issued only six months after the second notification (dated 07.02.2008).
Thus, applying the same rate to the lands situated in village Fajjupur Majra Neemka covered under the third notification including the computation of fair market price determined in respect of the lands covered under the second notification of the same village, the fair market price of lands covered under the third notification is also fixed at Rs.2509/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred nine only) per sq.yd.
The award stands modified to this limited extent while retaining the other benefits including statutory benefits granted to the claimants in respect of the subject lands. Hence the appeal(s) filed by the State stand dismissed, whereas filed by the claimant(s) are partly allowed in the above terms. "
[12.1] 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 decision dated 13/14.07.2021 in case of Banwari Lal (supra), alongwith all other statutory benefits and interest thereupon as
-8-
provided under the Act, except payment of interest for the period the appellants / landowners did not approach this Court after passing of Reference Court's Award.
[13] Hence, the appeal filed by the State stands dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by the landowners are disposed off in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed off. August 29, 2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra'
JUDGE