State Of Haryana And Another v. Baljinder Kaur
TABLE OF CONTENTS Sr. No.
Contents Page No.
1.
Introduction 1 - 2 2.
Facts 2 - 5 3.
The Issues which arise for adjudication 5 - 6 4.
Oral and documentary evidence 6 - 11 5.
Reasons and Analysis Of Judgment dated 28.10.2016 passed by the RC in the First Acquisition.
12 - 18 5.1 Reasons 12 - 15 5.2 Analysis of the above mentioned reasons.
15 - 18 6.
Reasons and Analysis Of Judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed by the RC in the Second Acquisition.
18 - 24 6.1 Reasons 18 - 20 6.2 Analysis of the above mentioned reasons.
21 - 24 7.
Arguments addressed by the learned counsels 24 - 27 8.
Discussion and Analysis by this Court 27 - 43 8.1 History of acquisition 27 - 28 8.2 Determination of Issue No.I 8.3 Determination of Issue No.II(a).
29 - 34 8.4 Determination of Issue No.II(b).
34 - 43 9.
Decision
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular First Appeal No. 484 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2022 State of Haryana and Another ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Baljinder Kaur ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present:
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana and Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. G.S.Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sewa Singh, Advocate Mr.Jasmer Chand, Advocate Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ishan Singh Cooner, Advocate Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate Mr.Gaurav Sethi, Advocate Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sushil K. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Yadvinder Singh Turka, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Goel and Mr. Parmod Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Vijay Dhiman, Advocate Mr. Deepk Singh Saini, Advocate and Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the landowners.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 By this judgment, a batch of regular first appeals (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment) filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") with respect to the adjoining parcels of the acquired land, located in the villages, namely Jandli, Kanwali, Kanwala, Saunda and Sarai Mehdood, shall stand
disposed of. Although, the land has been acquired by two separate notifications, however, keeping in view the fact that both the acquisitions are with respect to the adjoining pieces of the land in the same area, the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is in the same year, the assessment of the market value by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") as well the award passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC") is almost identical, the evidence led by the landowners is more or less the same and the learned counsel representing the parties are not only common, but even their arguments, in the concerned cases, are the same, therefore, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the aforesaid appeals by a common judgment.
2.
FACTS 2.1 Before this Bench proceeds to discuss the evidence, produced by the respective parties, some relevant particulars, with regard to both the acquisitions, are required to be noticed.
The Ist Acquisition (For developing Sector 23):- i) 28.02.2006- Notification U/s 4 of the 1894 Act proposing to acquire the land in the villages, namely Jandli (165.13 acres), Kanwli (50.45 acres), Saunda (33.91 acres) and Sarai Mehdood (3.86 acres) for developing a residential and commercial colony, namely Sector 23 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the HUDA") was issued. ii) 27.02.2007 -The notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued.
iii) 03.03.2009- Award No. 4 with respect to 87.55 acres of land was announced, while offering to pay, to the landowners of village Jandali, an amount @ 10,00,000/- ₹ per acre, whereas the landowners of the acquired land of the villages, namely Kanwli, Saunda and Sarai Mehdood, were offered an amount @ 8,00,000/- per acre. ₹ iv) 29.08.2014:- The RC, in the first round, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 2,950/- per square ₹ yard vide judgment dated 29.08.2014. Accordingly, the per acre price works out to 1,42,78,000/-.
₹ v) 28.10.2016:- The date of re-decision, after remand, by the RC.
The Second Acquisition( For developing Sector 22):- i) 20.07.2006: The notification U/s 4 of the 1894 Act was issued proposing to acquire the land of villlages- Kanwla, Kanwali, Jandli and Sarai Mehdood for developing Sector 22 by the HUDA.
ii) 19.07.2007: The declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued.
iii) 17.07.2009: The LAC vide award No. 3 dated 17.07.2009 offered to pay, to the landowners of village Jandali, an amount @ 10,00,000/- per acre, whereas the ₹ landowners of the acquired land of the villages, namely Kanwla, Kanwali and Sarai Mehdood were offered an amount @ 8,00,000/- per acre.
₹
iv) 24.04.2012: In the first round, the RC assessed the market value of the acquired land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act @ 499/- ₹ per square yard, vide judgment dated 24.04.2012. Accordingly, the per acre price works out to 24,15,160/-.
₹ v) 09.11.2016, 25.03.2019 & 16.04.2021: The date of redecision, after remand, by the RC in different batches vide judgments dated 09.11.2016, 25.03.2019 & 16.04.2021.
2.2 While delivering the judgment on 15.10.2015 in Harinder Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana (Regular First Appeal No. 3120 of 2011), a batch of the regular first appeals with respect to the Ist and 2nd acquisition were decided and the cases were remanded back to the RC for deciding afresh after permitting the parties to lead further evidence. The Court noticed that the layout plan (Ex.PW.6/D) produced by the landowners, is attractive, but misleading. It was noticed that on the scrutiny of the layout plan, it appears that the railway station and the bus stand of Ambala Cantonment are near to the acquired land but it has not been clarified as to whether the aforesaid distance is by a crow fly or by road. It is important to note that the acquired land is located in the town which is the hometown of the Presiding Judge at the High Court in the first round. 2.3 After remand by the High Court, the RC permitted the parties to lead further evidence. With regard to the first acquisition for the residential colony of Sector 23, HUDA, the RC has assessed the market value of the
acquired land in the following manner:- Sr. No.
Name of the Village Market Value of the acquired Land Rate of the land per square yard (In ) ₹ 1.
Jandli 43,56,000/- 900 /- 2.
Kanwli 49,65,840/- 1,026/- 3.
Saunda 50,82,900/- 1,050/- 4.
Sarai Mehdood 19,36,000/- 400/- (In ) ₹ 2.4 In the second acquisition, the RC has assessed the market value of the acquired land, more or less on similar lines, in the following manner:- Sr. No.
Name of the Village Market Value of the acquired Land Rate of the acquired land per square yard (In (In ) ₹ ) ₹ 1.
Jandli 43,56,000/- 900 /- 2.
Kanwli 49,65,840/- 1,026/- 3.
Kanwla 49,65,840/- 1,026/- 4.
Sarai Mehdood 19,36,000/- 400/- 2.5 The RC has decided these reference petitions by different judgments while assessing the same amount. In the first acquisition, the matter has been decided by the judgment dated 28.10.2016, whereas with respect to the second acquisition, the RC has decided the cases in different batches, vide judgments dated 09.11.2016, 24.03.2019 and 16.04.2021, respectively.
3.
THE ISSUES WHICH ARISE FOR ADJUDICATION 3.1 In the considered opinion of the Court, the following two issues require adjudication:- I) Whether the sale exemplars depicting price less than the amount assessed by the LAC are liable to be ignored while assessing the market value of the acquired land?
II) Which, out of the following two methods, should be preferred to assess the market value of the acquired land:- a) The comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period with respect to the parcels of the land, either forming part of the acquired land or located nearby? or b) The judicial assessment of the market value of the land located nearby which was acquired by a separate acquisition proceedings?
4.
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 4.1 In the first acquisition, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:- Sr. No.
Name of the Witness Particulars of the witness 1.
PW.1 Rajesh Kalyan Clerk in the office of the Sub Registrar.
2.
PW.2 Rajinder Kumar Patwari 3.
PW.3 Pawan Kumar Patwari 4.
PW.4 Karnail Singh Patwari 5.
PW.5 Bachan Singh Building Clerk 6.
PW.6 Sohan Singh 7.
PW.7 Surinder Mohan Mittal Registered Architect 8.
PW.8 Puneet Pandit Field Investigator 9.
PW.9 Vijay Singh Photographer 10.
PW.10 Manisha Manocha 4.2 PW.6 Sohan Singh and PW.10 Manisha Manocha are the owners of the land, whereas as many as three Patwaris, one Registered Architect and a Registration Clerk have been examined on behalf of the landowners. Apart from the aforesaid, Arvind Pal Singh has appeared in his own case. Apart from the sale instances, the landowners have produced the
following documentary evidence as noticed by the RC, the correctness whereof has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the parties:- Sr. No.
Exhibit Description of the document No.
1.
Ex.P1 Certified copy of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in LPA No. 1340 of 1982 titled as Om Parkash Versus State of Haryana decided 28.11.1990.
2.
Ex.P2 Certified copy of the broucher of Sector 10 HUDA Ambala City.
3.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the allotment letter no. 3612 dated 8.1.1981 pertaining to Booth No. 185 situated at New Grain Market, Ambala City.
4.
Ex.P4 Certified copy of Booth auctionedon 8.1.1979 situated at New Grain Market, Ambala City.
5.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of the judgment passed by the Court of Shri V.M. Jain, the then learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Ambala in LAC case No. 201 of 2004 titled as Sudesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana decided on 12.11.1984.
6.
Ex.P6 Copy of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2013 titled as Kashmir Singh Versus State of Haryana etc. decided on 13.12.2013.
7.
Ex.P28 Copy of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RFA No. 5605 of 2009 (O&M) titled as State of Haryana Versus Gurdeep Singh and another decided on 5.8.2015 related to notification of the year 2000.
8.
Ex.P29 Attested copy of judgment passed in LPA No. 366 of 1999 titled as Surinder Kumar Versus State of Haryana decided on 07.12.2005.
9.
Ex.P30 Attested copy of judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in LPA 292 of 1999 titled as Manohar Lal Khurana Versus State of Haryana decided on 22.2.2006.
10.
Ex.P31 Attested copy of letter of allotment dated 24.10.1990 of shop-cum-Flat/Booths/Plots in Scheme No. 19 of Ambala Improvement Trust, Ambala City.
11.
Ex.P32 Attested copy of allotment letter dated 13.06.2016 relating to site/booth, sitauted at village Kanwla, in Sector 22(27), Ambala City.
12.
Ex.P33 Site plan of the acquired land and its suroundings. 4.3 On the other hand, the respondents have examined RW.1
Rajinder Singh, Patwari and produced the various sale deeds of the villages, namely Saunda, Sarai Mehdood and Jandali.
4.4 In the second acquisition, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:- Sr. No.
Name of the Witness Particulars of the witness 1.
PW.1 Nirmail Chand Patwari 2.
PW.2 Pawan Kumar Patwari 3.
PW.3 Mahesh Chander Jindal 4.
PW.4 Samat Singh Patwari 5.
PW.5 Vikash Sharma Registration Clerk from the office of the Sub Registrar, Ambala 6.
PW.6 Surinder Mohan Mittal Architect 7.
PW.7 Yashpal Photographer 8.
PW.8 Dalbir Singh Landowner 9.
PW.9 Maninder Singh Landowner 4.5 On the other hand, Inderjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar, in the Office of the LAC, Haryana, appeared as RW.1. The State also produced the sale deeds of the various parcels of the land located in the villages, namely Kanwla, Kanwali and some other villages.
4.6 At this stage, it would be important to compile a consolidated list of the sale deeds/sale exemplars, produced by the respective parties in the villages, namely Kanwali, Kanwala, Jandali, Sarai Mahmodpur, Saunda, Ambala City and Mandor, in order to help the Court to assess the market value of the land as on 28.02.2006 and 20.07.2006. Sr. No. Exhibit Nos. in Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price Price Per Acre various files KANWALI (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 1.
A-18 01.05.2006 Sq. Yards 2,97,000 38,74,609 2.
RC, R-3, R-4 04.07.2005 4K 3,00,000 6,00,000
Sr. No. Exhibit Nos. in Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price Price Per Acre various files 3.
RD, R-4, R-5 03.07.2006 9A-6K68,86,250 6,91,217.06 14M 4.
RF, R-7 16.05.2005 5K-7M 4,02,000 6,01,121 KANWALA (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 5.
P-23, A-16 14.11.2005 Sq. Yards 4,27,000 99,35,961 6.
PW-15/27, 26.09.2005 22.22 Sq. Yards 30,000 65,34,653 P-14 7.
A-15, P-22 27.12.2001 Sq. Yards 30,000 66,00,000 8.
PO 20.10.2000 3K-14M 1,10,000 2,37,837 9.
PN 20.10.2000 1K-18M 2,00,000 8,42,105 10.
A-17, P-24 11.11.1999 22.22 Sq. Yards 23,000 50,09,900 11.
PP 17.02.2003 3K-18M 1,40,000 2,87,179 12.
PW-5/2, P-21, 02.06.2006 Sq. Yards 4,90,000 2,37,16,000 P-31, A-14 13.
PW-5/4, P-15, 20.05.2005 Sq. Yards 2,75,000 1,27,98,076 P-11, A-7 14.
PH 29.06.2007 Sq. Yards 1,000,000 24,200,000 15.
RG, R-8, R-7 15365 31.03.2006 4K 1,95,000 3,90,000 16.
RB, R-2, R-3 02.11.2006 18K-11M 16,24,000 7,00,377 17.
RE, R-5, R-6 13.04.2006 4K-17M 4,25,000 7,01,030 JANDALI (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 18.
PW-5/12, P-25 14185 22.03.2006 2K-17M 20,00,000 56,14,035 19.
PW-5/11, P-24 14184 22.03.2006 2K-18M 20,00,000 55,17,241 20.
PW-5/10, P-23 14183 22.03.2006 2K-18M 20,00,000 55,17,241 21.
PW-5/9, P-22 14182 22.03.2006 2K-16M 20,00,000 57,14,285 22.
PW-5/8, P-21 14181 22.03.2006 2K-17M 20,00,000 56,14,035 23.
PW-5/7,P-20 14180 22.03.2006 2K-18M 2000000 55,17,241 24.
PW-5/17, P-19 12739 21.02.2006 Sq. Yards 35,000 1,30,30,769 25.
PW-15/18, P-18 12149 06.02.2006 24.44 Sq. Yards 50,000 99,01,800
26. PW-5/6, P-16, A-9 10602 30.12.2005 133.33 Sq. Yards 4,55,000 32,62,518
27. PW-5/5, P-13, P-8, 10075 15.02.2005 Sq. Yards 1,12,500 2,01,66,666 A-5 28.
PW-5/16, P-13 07.09.2005 26.38 Sq. Yards 95,000 1,74,29,871 29.
PW-5/30, P-7 20.09.2004 Sq. Yards 50,000 86,42,857 30.
PW-5/29, P-12, 14.09.2004 13.88 Sq. Yards 25,000 87,17,579 P-6, A-4 31.
PW-5/14, P-3 16.08.2004 2K-16M 21,00,000 60,00,000
Sr. No. Exhibit Nos. in Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price Price Per Acre various files
32. PW-5/15, P-10,P18.06.2004 Sq. Yards 1,30,000 20296774 2, A-2 33.
P-1 22.07.2003 Sq. Yards 80,000 19,36,000 34.
A-13, PW- 5/25, 02.06.2006 28.11 Sq. Yards 56,500 97,28,210 P-20, P-32,
35. PW-5/1, P-9, P-1, 17.07.2003 33.33 Sq. Yards 1,00,000 1,45,21,452 A-1 36.
PW-15/24, P-19, 31.05.2006 36.66 Sq. Yards 74,000 97,69,776 P-30, A-12 37.
PW-5/23, P-18, 16.05.2006 Sq. Yards 5,31,000 87,12,000 P-29, A-11 38.
PW-15/22, P-28 10.05.2006 36.66 Sq. Yards 73,500 97,03,764 39.
PW-5/3, P-14, 27.04.2005 Sq. Yards 3,05,000 1,84,52,500 P-10, A-6 40.
PW-15/21, P-27 24.04.2006 22.22 Sq. Yards 45,000 98,01,980 41.
PW-15/20, P-17, 20.04.2006 22.66 Sq. Yards 46,000 98,25,242 P-26, A-10 42.
Additional 14308 23.03.2006 Sq. Yards 5,80,000 1,16,96,666 Evidence (A-1) 43.
R-5 13.07.2005 Sq. Yards 81,500 19,43,152 44.
R-6 26.05.2005 Sq. Yards 83,000 40,17,200 SARAI MAHMOODPUR (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 45.
A-20, P-26 02.06.2006 Sq. Yards 4,80,000 38,72,000 46.
A-19, P-25 02.06.2006 Sq. Yards 4,80,000 38,72,000 47.
P-27 01.06.2006 Sq. Yards 2,40,000 38,72,000 48.
R-4 10.01.2005 10K-2M 4,11,000 3,25,544 49.
R-7 17.09.2004 28K 11,37,000 3,24,857 SAUNDA (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 50.
PW-5/19, P-17 11859 30.01.2006 40.33 Sq. Yards 80,000 96,00,793 51.
PW-15/26, P-15, 10115 20.12.2005 Sq. Yards 1,10,000 10,64,8000 A-8, P-7 52.
PW-15/25, P-12 05.08.2005 Sq. Yards 50,000 52,60,869 53.
PW-5/32, P-4 16.08.2004 Sq. Yards 4,24,000 73,55,412
54. PW-5/31, P-8, P-9 26.04.2005 1,00,000 96,80,000
Sr. No. Exhibit Nos. in Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price Price Per Acre various files Sq. Yards 55.
RA, R-1 11314 24.03.2005 94.44 Sq. Yards 28,500 14,60,609 56.
R-2, RB 12025 01.02.2006 2K-19M 1,00,000 2,71,186 57.
R-3 12127 06.02.2006 Sq. Yards 30,000 12,84,955 AMBALA CITY (Sale Deeds Produced by the landowners) 58.
PW-5/13, P-11, 10.11.2004 165.76 Sq. Yards 8,00,000 2,33,59,073 P-5, A-3 MANDOR (Sale Deeds Produced by the State/Acquiring Agency) 59.
RA, R-8 19.07.2007 6K-2M 5,70,000 7,47,540 4.7 In order to understand the information compiled in above-noted table, it is appropriate to explain the meaning of the words/phrases used, as under:- 1.
1 Rectangle = 5 X 5 = 25 Acre 2.
1 Acre = 160 Marlas 3.
8 Kanal = 1 Acre 4.
1 Kanal = 20 Marlas 5.
1 Acre = 4840 Sq. Yards 6.
1 Marla = 272.251 Sq. Feet = 30.25 Sq. Yards 7.
1 Inch = 2.54 cm 8.
1 Foot = 12 Inch.
9.
1 Sq. Feet = 12 X 12 =144 Inch.
10. 1 Yard = 3 Feet
11. 1 Sq. Yard = 9 Sq. Feet
12. 100 Sq. Yards = 900 Sq. Feet
13. 1 Kanal = 0.125 Acre
14. 1 Marla = 0.00625001 Acre
15. "//" denotes Rectangle Number.
16. "/" denotes Khasra/Killa Number.
17. "A" denotes Acre
18. "K" denotes Kanal
19. "M" denotes Marla
5.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.2016 PASSED BY THE RC IN THE FIRST ACQUISITION 5.1 REASONS 5.1.1 Now, the stage is set for examining the reasons recorded by the RC while deciding the various reference applications vide judgment dated 28.10.2016. From the careful reading of the award, the following reasons appear to have been recorded:- i) The contention of the learned counsel representing the landowners with regard to the grant of 12% cumulative increase on the basis of the judgment passed in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurdeep Singh and Another (Ex.PX) cannot be accepted as, in the present case, the acquisition of the land is with respect to four villages, whereas in Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), the acquired land was only from village Saunda.
(ii) The RC further held that a perusal of the various sale deeds showed variance in the price of the land in the villages. Hence, the sale deeds of one village cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land in the other villages. The RC distinguished the cases before it from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nelson Fernandez and Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others 2007(1) LACC 535 (Supreme Court). iii) The RC, thereafter, proceeded to examine the village-
wise sale deeds produced by the landowners. At the first instance, the Court while taking up the cases of village Saunda, noticed that the landowners have produced 2 sale deeds of plots measuring 50 square yards eachEx.P7( dated 20.12.2005 sold @ 2,200/- per square yard) and Ex.P8(dated 26.04.2006 sold @ 2000/- per square yard). The RC held that the sale deeds, produced by the State, cannot be taken into consideration because it reflects a market value which is less than the market value assessed by the LAC. Thus, the RC proceeded to take the average price of the sale instances (Ex.P7 and Ex.P8) i.e. 2,100/- and applied a cut of 50% while ₹ recognizing the dissimilarity between the acquired land and the plots covered by the sale exemplars, and finally, arrived at a figure of 1,050/- per square yard. Thus, the ₹ RC assessed the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act with respect to the acquired land located in village Saunda @ 1,050/- per square yard.
₹ iv) With respect to the acquired land situated in village Jandli, the RC held that the sale instances (Ex.P10, Ex.P11, Ex.P13, Ex.P14 and Ex.P16) relate to the builtup (already constructed) houses and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It was further noticed that the sale instances (Ex.P9, Ex.P12, Ex.P17, Ex.P19 and Ex.P20) are with
respect to the plots of smaller size of land. However, the RC found that the sale instance (Ex.P18) dated 16.05.2006, with respect to the plot measuring 295 square yards, is, although, post the date of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, however, can be relied upon. Thus, the RC assessed the market value on the basis of the before-mentioned sale instance after applying a cut of 50% on account of dissimilarity between the sale exemplar and the acquired land and finally, determined the market value @ 900/- per square ₹ yard.
v) With respect to the acquired land situated in village Kanwali, the RC found that no sale instance of this village has been produced by any of the parties. The RC observed that reliance can be placed upon the sale deeds of the land located in the adjoining village i.e. Kanwla and after ignoring the sale instance Ex.P21 being of a built-up area, Ex.P22 and Ex.P24 being of smaller areas, relied upon the sale instance Ex.P23 dated 14.11.2005 with respect to the plot measuring 208 square yards. The RC applied 50% cut on the value of the plot which was sold for 4,27,000/- (the per square yard price comes to ₹ 2,052.88) and finally, assessed the market value @ ₹ 1,026/- per square yard.
₹ vi) In respect of village Sarai Mehdood, the RC relied upon
the sale instances (Ex.P26 and Ex.P27) dated 02.06.2006 (600 square yards) and 01.06.2006 (300 square yards), sold for for 4,80,000/- and 2,80,000/-, respectively. ₹ ₹ The price comes to 800/- per square yard. The RC ₹ ignored the sale instance (Ex.RG) dated 17.09.2004, produced by the State, with respect to the land measuring 28 kanals, sold for a total consideration of 11,37,500/-, ₹ on the ground that the sale price is less than the amount assessed by the LAC and therefore, it is liable to be ignored. The RC further observed that it is much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act (dated 28.02.2006) and therefore, should be ignored. Thus, the RC after applying 50% cut on account of dissimilarity between the acquired land and the sale sale exemplar relied upon, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 400/- per square yard.
5.2 ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS 5.2.1 As regards the first reason assigned by the RC in the first acquisition, it would be noted that it has correctly refused to rely upon the judgment in Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), which is marked as Ex.PX. It is with respect to the acquisition of the land in village Saunda vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 06.07.2000. This acquisition was made for the construction of water works based, on the canal water. The aforesaid acquisition is approximately six years prior to the present acquisition and there is no evidence to show how the geographical location
of the land acquired in the afore-said notification is comparable to the land acquired in the present case, for determining the market value. 5.2.2 The next reason assigned by the RC is to the effect that the sale deed of the parcel of land located in one village cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land in the other village because there is a huge variation in the price. It is noted here that the aforesaid reasoning is not wholly correct, however, it shall be elaborately discussed in the later part of the judgment. Thereafter, the RC proceeded to rely upon the sale instances (Ex.P7 and Ex.P8) with respect to the plots, each measuring 50 square yards, located in village Saunda to determine the market value of the acquired land.
It is noted here that in the village Saunda itself, the total acquisition is of 16.808 acres. Normally, each acre consists of 4840 square yards area. There is no evidence to the effect that the land acquired was already a developed land. In such circumstances, the RC has erred in relying upon the sale instance of developed plots measuring 50 square yards to determine the market value of the undeveloped agricultural land. Similarly, the RC has also erred by observing that the sale instance (Ex.RA) dated 24.03.2005, produced by the State, with respect to the plot measuring 94.44 square yards, cannot be relied upon because the price is less than the amount assessed by the LAC. It is evident that while determining the market value, the RC is required to take into consideration the entire evidence produced.
Section 25 of the 1894 Act only prohibits the RC from assessing the market value at an amount lesser than the amount assessed by the LAC.
LAC. A reference, in this regard, can be placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Others (2009) 15 SCC 769.
5.2.3 The next reason assigned by the RC, while determining the market value of the acquired land of village Jandli, to say the least, is strange. The RC, after noticing that the sale instance (Ex.P18) is post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, still chooses to rely upon the same. The sale instance Ex.P18- (which is only with respect to 295 square yards plot) is dated 16.05.2006, whereas, the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act with respect to the first acquisition was issued on 28.02.2006. Similarly, with respect to the acquired land located in village Kanwli, the RC noticed that no sale instance of village Kanwli has been produced. However, the RC has relied upon the sale instance of a parcel of land located in the village Kanwla and held that Ex.P23 dated 14.11.
2005 with respect to the plot measuring 208 square yards is an appropriate sale exemplar and considering the smaller size of the plot represented by Ex.P23, the RC applied a cut @ 50% on it. In the considered opinion of the Court, in the presence of relevant evidence produced by the State, the RC committed an error in overlooking the same. With respect to the acquired land situated in village Sarai Mehdood, the RC has relied upon Ex.P26, the sale instance dated 02.06.2006 (plot measuring 600 square yards) and Ex.P27, the sale instance dated 01.06.2006 (plot measuring 300 square yards), respectively. The RC ignored the sale instance (Ex.RG) dated 17.09.2004, produced by the State, with respect to 28 kanals of plot sold for 11,37,500/- on the ₹ ground that the sale price is lesser than the amount determined by the LAC.
For the similar reasons, as already noticed, the sale instance (Ex.RG), with respect to the agricultural land measuring 28 kanals, was a comparable sale instance and it has been wrongly ignored by the RC. 6.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED BY THE RC IN THE SECOND ACQUISITION 6.1 REASONS 6.1.1 In the second acquisition, which was initiated with the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 20.07.2006, the RC has decided the cases in different batches. The first award was passed on 09.11.2006 while deciding 362 reference petitions. On 25.03.2019, another batch of 32 reference petitions was decided. On 16.04.2021, a batch of 24 reference petitions was disposed of.
6.1.2 It is noted here that the same Presiding Judge, who decided the cases from the Ist acquisition vide award dated 28.10.2016 has decided the cases arising from the 2nd acquisition vide award dated 09.11.2006. The reasons assigned in both the judgments are identical. In fact, the reason No.1 and 2 are exactly same and need no further elaboration. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to assess the market value of the acquired land villagewise, after taking a note of the fact that there is a vast variation in the price of the land. The RC has held that the sale deeds (Ex.A2, Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A9) of village Jandali are either with respect to built-up shops or houses and therefore, are liable to be ignored, whereas, the sale instances Ex.A1 (33.33 square yards), Ex.A4 (13.88 square yards), Ex.A10 (22.66 square yards), Ex.A12 (36.66 square yards) and Ex.A13 (28.11 square yards) are liable to be ignored because these are with respect to plots of smaller sizes.
However, the RC relied upon the sale instance of plot measuring 295 Square yards (Ex.A11) dated 16.05.2006 sold for a total consideration of 5,31,000/-. The market value comes to 1,800/- per square yard. The RC ₹ ₹ while holding that this plot is of a small size, accordingly, applied a cut of 50% on account of dissimilarity between the acquired land and size of the plot and finally arrived at a market value of the acquired land @ 900/- per ₹ square yard. In respect of the acquired land of village Kanwla, the RC noticed that the landowners have produced the sale instances (Ex.A7, Ex.A14, Ex.A15, Ex.A16, Ex.A17 and Ex.PH) and the price per square yard is ranging from 1,035/- per square yard to 5,000/- per square yard. It was ₹ ₹ also noticed that the State has also produced the sale deeds Ex.RA(dated 19.07.2007) and Ex.R13 (dated 02.11.
2006), which are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Ex.RE dated 13.04.2006 is with respect to the land measuring 4 kanals and 17 marlas sold for a total consideration of 4,25,000/-. The rate per square yard of the land comes to ₹ 144.84. Similarly, the State has also produced the sale instance (Ex.RG) ₹ dated 31.03.2006 with respect to the land measuring 4 kanals sold for a total consideration of 1,10,000/- and the rate per square yard works out to ₹ 45.45. Thereafter, the RC ignored the sale instances (Ex.RE and Ex.RG) on ₹ the premise that the market price of the sale deeds is less than the amount assessed and offered by the LAC. Thereafter, the RC has opted to rely upon the sale instance Ex.A16 (dated 14.11.
2005) with respect to the plot measuring 208 square yards sold for a sold for a total consideration of 4,27,000/-. The per square yard price comes to 2,052.88/-.
vis-a-vis the acquired land, the RC, finally, worked out the price @ 1,026/- ₹ per square yard.
6.1.3 With respect to the acquired land, situated in village Sarai Mehdood, the RC has noticed that the two sale instances (Ex.A19 and Ex.A20), each is with respect to a plot measuring 600 square yards, which have been sold for a total consideration of 4,80,000/- individually, have ₹ been produced. The per acre price comes to 800/-. The RC held that no sale ₹ deed has been produced by the State with respect to the land situated in village Sarai Mehdood and therefore, after applying a deduction cut @ 50%, it, finally, held that the landowners are entitled to 400/- per square yard. ₹ 6.1.4 With respect to the acquired land, located in village Kanwli, the RC noticed that the landowners have produced the sale instance (Ex.A18) dated 01.05.2006 for the land measuring 371 square yards sold for a total consideration 2,97,000/-.
The per square yard price comes to 800/-, ₹ ₹ whereas, the State has produced three sale instances i.e. Ex.RC dated 04.07.2005, with respect to the land measuring 4 kanals, Ex.RD dated 03.07.2006, with respect to the land measuring 78 Kanals & 14 Marlas, Ex.R6 dated 16.05.2005, with respect to the land measuring 5 Kanals & 7 Marlas. The RC held that since the sale price, in the sale deeds, produced by the State of Haryana, is lesser than the amount assessed by the LAC, therefore, they cannot be relied upon in view of the bar under Section 25 of the 1894 Act. Thereafter, the RC proceeded to rely upon the assessment made with respect to the acquired land situated in village Kanwli in respect of the first acquisition and held that the landowners are entitled to the market value @ 1,026/- per square yard.
₹
6.2 ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED REASONS 6.2.1 Now the stage is set for analyzing the reasons given by the RC while deciding the second acquisition. As regards the reason No. (i) and (ii), the same are common and therefore, have already been discussed. As regards the decision to make the assessment of the market value of acquired land village-wise, the same shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment. However, at this stage, it is relevant to note the reasons given by the RC to prefer the sale deeds. While assessing the evidence of village Jandli, the RC has relied upon Ex.A11, which is the sale instance dated 16.05.2006 with respect to a plot measuring 295 square yards sold for a total consideration of 5,31,000/-. Normally, a plot measuring 295 square yards, cannot be used ₹ for agricultural purposes.
When the RC is assessing the compensation for more than 330 acres of the land, it is not appropriate for the Court to assess the compensation on the basis of a plot measuring 295 square yards only, particularly when the comparable sale instances of reasonably sized parcels of land with respect to the acquired land are available. In fact, the plot measuring 295 square yards is less than 1/16th part of an acre of land. An acre of land normally consists of the area measuring 4840 square yards and the plot measuring 295 square yards is merely 6% of an acre of land. 6.2.2 Similarly, while discussing the evidence for the acquisition of the land situated in village Kanwla, the RC relied upon the sale instance (Ex.A16) dated 14.11.2005 with respect to the plot measuring 208 square yards sold for a total consideration of 4,27,000/-.
The per square yard price ₹ comes to 2,05.88/-.
square yards is clearly erroneous. As regards the assessment of the land situated in village Sarai Mehdood, the RC again relied upon the same sale instance as was relied upon while deciding the first acquisition. 6.2.3 At this stage, it is appropriate to note Section 25 of the 1894 Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- "25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the CollectorThe amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11".
6.2.4 It is evident from the careful reading of the aforesaid provision that the statute has prohibited the RC from assessing the market value of the acquired land at a price which is lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. However, there is no bar in taking into consideration the sale deeds of a lesser value. The issue regarding this is no longer res-integra. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after discussing the relevant case laws, has expounded as under:- "55. We fail to see how the said section has any relevance in regard to determination of market value as contrasted from award of compensation. If the sale deeds relied on by the respondents showed a particular market value, they cannot be ignored merely because the Collector had awarded compensation at a higher rate in regard to the acquired land.
56.
All that Section 25 requires is that courts should not award an amount which is less than what is awarded by the LAC, even if the evidence may show a lesser market value. So, the bar under Section 25 of the LA Act is not in regard to determination of a market value, which is less than what was awarded by the LAO. The bar is only upon the RC (or any higher court) reducing the compensation awarded by the LAC".
6.2.5 Therefore, the reasons for ignoring the sale instances produced by the State of Haryana are clearly erroneous. This also sufficiently answers Issue No.1.
6.2.6 As already noticed, in the second acquisition, the RC has decided the cases in three different batches. Let us first examine the evidence produced by the landowners in LAC No. 599 of 2017 and other connected cases, which came to be decided on 25.03.2019. The landowners have examined PW.1 Chander Kala, PW.2 Karamjit Singh, PW.3 Anil Kumar, PW.4 Ranjit Kaur, PW.5 Ashok Kumar and PW.6 Tara Devi. They have also tendered the previous award passed by the RC on 09.11.2016 as Ex.PX. On the other hand, Samat Singh, Patwari, appeared before the RC and submitted that these matters can be decided in terms of the judgment (Ex.PX). The RC, after relying upon the previous judgment passed on 09.11.2016, assessed similar compensation in these cases. There is yet another award passed by the RC while deciding as many as 24 reference petitions on 16.04.2021. In this case, Baljit Singh, one of the landowners, appeared as PW.1 and tendered his affidavit. He also relied upon the
judgment dated 09.11.2016. The RC, after noticing that the matter has already been decided, has relied upon the same and passed the order, accordingly.
7.
ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS BEFORE THIS COURT 7.1 Heard learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance, perused the various awards passed by the RC along with the record, which was requisitioned. A few learned counsels have also filed their written arguments.
7.2 Mr. Jasmer Chand, Advocate, while taking the lead amongst the various counsels appearing for the landowners, has drawn the attention of the Court to Ex.P2, a brochure issued in the year 1999 while inviting the applications for the allotment of the residential plots in Sector 10, Ambala and has gone to submit that Ambala is recognized as a prestigous and most sought after urban area in the Northern India as it is easily accessible and offers a pollutant free environment. He contends that way back in the year 1991 itself, Ambala had emerged as a prestigious and most sought after urban area in the Northern India. He, hence, contends that the assessment made by the RC is on the lower side. He, while referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashrafi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2013) 5 SCC 527 (Ex.
the 1894 Act i.e. 28.02.2006 by granting 12% per annum escalation, cumulatively, over and above the market value assessed by the Supreme Court or the High Court with respect to the previous acquisitions in the area. The learned counsel, while referring to para 41 and 42 of the judgment in Ashrafi's case (supra), has submitted that a judicial declaration is the best way forward and therefore, the Court must grant an increase @ 12% annually and cumulatively, from the date of the judgment passed in Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 16372-16040 of 2008, which was later on, modified in Ashrafi's case (supra). It is noted here that in Surinder Kumar's case (supra), the land of village Patti Mahar, Saunda and Jandli acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 26.05.
1981 was assessed @ 110/- per square ₹ yard which was subsequently, modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel contends that the present acquisition is also with respect to land located in villages Saunda and Jandli and therefore, the Court is bound to assess the market value by increasing the amount @ 12% per year cumulatively. While referring to the order passed by the High Court at the time of remand, he claims that the RC has failed to comply with the same. He, while referring to the judgment passed on 05.08.2015 in Gurpreet Singh Vs.
State of Haryana, contends that in the said case, the market value of the land acquired in village Saunda, for the construction of a canal water based water works, has been assessed, the said acquisition is of the year 2000 and therefore, the Court should grant an increase of 12% per year cumulatively on the amount assessed in the aforesaid judgment so as to assess the market value of the acquired land in the present case.
thereof, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC 165. 7.3 Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, appearing for certain other landowners, has contended that the entire area was already a residential area as is depicted in the layout plan Ex.P23 and hence, the Court should have taken the average of all the sale deeds produced by the landowners. He, further, contends that the RC, also, erred in applying a cut of 50%, although it should not have been more than 20%. He relies upon the judgment passed in Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568 and Meharawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC
432. He, further, contends that all the relevant sale transactions have been produced by the landowners and the documents produced by the respondentState are irrelevant and therefore, should not be considered. The court should focus only on the annual cumulative increase to work out the market value of the acquired land.
7.4 Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the certain other landowners, has contended that in another judgment, for the purpose of developing the land in Sector 10, the acquisition was made from the same rectangle and therefore, the Court should have granted cumulative increase @ 12% per annum. He, in support thereof, relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008)14 SCC
745. Various other counsels have adopted the arguments of Learned counsels as noted above.
7.5 Per contra, the learned counsel representing the State has
submitted that there is no evidence of increase in the market value of the land in the area. While referring to the various documents, he has submitted that the market value of the acquired land keeps fluctuating due to various reasons and once the comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period have been produced, the RC should not indulge in assumptions that the price of the land would increase @ 12% cumulatively every year. He has further submitted that the State Government or the HUDA has not allotted any part of the acquired land to Vatika Developers. He has further contended that the landowners have withheld the sale deeds of bigger parcels of the land and therefore, the Court should allow the appeal of the State of Haryana.
8.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS BY THIS COURT 8.1 HISTORY OF ACQUISITION 8.1.1 Let us, first, proceed to understand the history of acquisition in the area. As per the record, the process of acquisition first began by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 30.01.1973 to acquire some land of the village Patti Mahar for developing a colony by the HUDA. The Division Bench of the High Court in Om Parkash v. State of Haryana (Letters Patent Appeal No. 1340 of 1982) held that the market value of the acquired land in village Patti Mahar in the year 1973 was 70/- per square ₹ yard. Thereafter, there was another acquisition in village Saunda in the year 1981. The matter with regard to the assessment of the market value came to be finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashrafi's case (supra), while deciding a large number of appeals, arising from the States of Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Union Territory of
Chandigarh. There was another acquisition of the land in village Saunda by issuing notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 06.07.2000 for developing canal water based water works which ultimately resulted assessing the market value of the acquired land @ ₹ 895/- per square yard by the High Court in State of Haryana v. Gurpreet Singh (Regular First Appeal No. 5650 of 2009, decided on 05.08.2015). There was yet another acquisition, which was initiated by issuing notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 31.03.1997 for the construction of water works (other water works) and the High Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 170/- per square yard ₹ in Prem Singh and Others v. State of Haryana. Similarly, for carving out a colony i.e.
Sector 10, the acquisition was initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 02.02.1989. In Manohar Lal Khurana v. State of Haryana (Letters Patent Appeal No. 292 of 1999, decided on 22.02.2006), the market value of the land of the villages, namely Saunda and Jandli was assessed @ 8,95,000/- ₹ per acre. However, all these acquisitions referred to above, as already noticed, are on the Northern side of the acquired land. In fact, the acquired land is situated on a corner as it has no direct connectivity either with the Railway Station or the Bus Stand at Ambala Cantonment. The High Court, while remanding back the case, has already observed that the layout plan, produced by the landowners, is misleading. No doubt, after the remand, fresh layout plans have been produced.
However, even now, the distance by road between the Railway Station or the Bus Stand at Ambala, on the one side and the acquired land, on the other side, has not been disclosed.
8.2 DETERMINATION OF ISSUE NO.I 8.2.1 This issue has been elaborately dealt with in para 6.2.6 of this judgment. Succinctly, the RC, while passing the impugned judgments, has committed a manifest error in overlooking the sale instances produced by the State of Haryana. These sale instances have been ignored by the various RCs, in the respective petitions, on the premise that the sale price reflected in the sale deeds is less than the amount assessed by the LAC and therefore, by virtue of Section 25 of the 1894 Act, such sale instances cannot be relied upon. The various Reference Courts, while deciding the respective cases, have overlooked the well settled law in this regard. It is evident that under Section 25 of the 1894 Act, the RC should not award an amount which is lesser than the amount assessed by the LAC.
However, there is no prohibition or restriction to take into consideration the sale exemplars, produced by any of the parties, which depict a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. Reliance, in this regard, can be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra). 8.2.2 Therefore, it is observed that the RCs have erred in ignoring the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana. Thus, issue No.I has been sufficiently answered.
8.3 DETERMINATION OF ISSUE NO.II(a) 8.3.1 It is apparent that the RC has proceeded to assess the market value of the acquired land on a wholly wrong basis. While assessing the market value of the acquired land in village Saunda, the RC relied upon two sale deeds (Ex.P7 and Ex.P8), which are with respect to very small sized plots measuring 50 square yards each, whereas, the sale deed (Ex.RB) dated
01.02.2006, produced by the State, is with respect to the land measuring 2 Kanals and 19 Marlas, which was sold for 1,00,000/-. The per acre price ₹ comes to 2,71,000/-. This parcel of the land, which is of a reasonable size, ₹ is not far away from the acquired land in village Saunda. This parcel of land has been acquired for the purpose of developing Sector 23. Similarly, while assessing the market value of the acquired land in village Jandli, the RC has relied upon the sale instance dated 16.05.2006 (Ex.P18) with respect to the plot measuring 295 square yards. It is with respect to a developed plot and cannot be made the basis to assess the market value of a large track of undeveloped land. Similarly, while assessing the market value of the acquired land in village Kanwali, the RC has relied upon the sale instance (Ex.P23) dated 14.11.
2005, with respect to a plot measuring 208 square yards. The price per square yard comes to 2,052.88/-. This plot is again a ₹ part of the developed colony and could not be relied upon to assess the market value of a huge track of agricultural land. Similarly, for assessing the market value of the land in village Sarai Mehdood, the RC has relied upon the sale instances (Ex.P26 dated 02.06.2006 and Ex.P27 dated 01.06.2006) with respect to the developed plots measuring 600 and 300 square yards, respectively. The RC, after observing that Ex.RG/R7 is a sale deed dated 17.09.2004 of village Sarai Mehdood, with respect to the land measuring 28 Kanals, which was sold for 11,37,500/-,committed an error in ignoring the ₹ same on the premise that the sale price is lesser than the amount assessed by the LAC.
8.3.2 Even while assessing the market value of the acquired land with respect to the second acquisition, the RC has committed similar errors. In
fact, in the second acquisition also, the judgment has been delivered by the same Presiding Judge, by whom it was delivered in the first acquisition. With respect to village Jandli, the RC has relied upon the sale instance (Ex.A11) with respect to a plot measuring 295 square yards. In village Kanwla, the RC has relied upon the sale instance (ExA16) with respect to a plot measuring 208 square yards. While assessing the market value of the acquired land of village Kanwli, the RC has relied upon the previous award arising from the first acquisition.
8.3.3 From a bare look at the various layout plans produced by the respective parties, it is evident that the acquired land of Sector 22 and 23 abut each other. In fact, the acquired land of Sector 23 is in bits and pieces along with the land of private developers and is located in different parcels which are not contiguous. It can be said that the acquired land of Sector 23 is in various parcels having minimal connectivity with each other. Although, the litigation with reference to the private developers is pending, however, this is not a relevant fact for the purpose of decision in the present case. 8.3.4 Further, it is also observed here that after the remand of the case, the landowners have produced a fresh layout plan Ex.PW.8/D. In the aforesaid layout plan, the location of as many as 29 sale exemplars has been disclosed.
It is evident, on careful perusal of the layout plan, that all the other sale deeds are with respect to the developed areas and none of the sale deeds are with respect to the acquired land or the nearby land. It is also evident that the sale deeds dated 16.08.2004 and 12.03.2006 are with respect to the area which is towards the Eastern side of the Railway Line, whereas the acquired land is located on the Western side of the Railway Line.
the Railway line there is a big strip of land reserved for the defence forces and thereafter, lies the acquired land. It is further evident that all those sale deeds produced by the landowners are either of the residential colonies or the market area. Hence, the aforesaid sale deeds exemplars cannot be relied upon.
8.3.5 There is another layout plan which has not been exhibited by the Court. In the aforesaid layout plan, with respect to Sector 23, HUDA, the position of the various parcels of the land sold through various sale exemplars produced by the landowners is no different. The sale exemplars produced by the landowners are with respect to the already developed sectors/areas/market, hence, these sale exemplars are not the comparable sale deeds. As such, these sale deeds cannot be relied upon. 8.3.6 Moreover, there is another important aspect of the matter which is required to be noticed. In the second acquisition, which was initiated on 20.07.2006, the State of Haryana has produced the various sale instances of village Kanwala and Kanwali (Ex.RG/R8 dated 31.03.2006, Ex.RB/R2 dated 02.11.2006, Ex.RC/R3 dated 04.07.2005, Ex.RD/R4 dated 03.07.
2006 and Ex.RF/R7 dated 16.05.2005). From a bare perusal of lay out plan-Ex.R9 produced by the State of Haryana, it is evident that these sale instances are related to various parcels of the land, located in villages Kanwala and Kanwali, with respect to the acquired land. It is also evident that the acquired land itself has been purchased at a price less than 8,00,000/- per ₹ acre. The RC has assessed the market value of the acquired land in these villages @ 49,65,840/- per acre, whereas, the sale instance dated ₹ 31.03.2006 (Ex.
months prior to the date of notification, under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, in the second acquisition. The land has been sold @ 220/- per square yard. ₹ Ex.RB/R2 is a sale instance dated 02.11.2006, which is executed within four months post the date of notification, under Section 4 of the 1894 Act and the land has been sold @ 7,47,541/- per acre. Similar is the position with ₹ regard to the sale instance Ex.RC/R3 dated 04.07.2005, which is one month prior to the date of notification, under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The sale instances of villages, namely Kanwala and Kanwali (Ex.RD/R4 dated 03.07.2006, Ex.RF/R7 dated 16.05.2005 and Ex.RE/R5 dated 13.04.2006) consistently reflect that the price of the acquired land is not beyond 8,00,000/- per acre as had been awarded by the LAC. Thus, an inescapable ₹ conclusion is that the RC has committed an error in assessing the market value.
8.3.7 There is yet another aspect of the case. It may be noted here there is no physical boundary between the two villages. Such boundary between the villages is only fictional so as to identify that a particular parcel of the land is located in the territorial limits of a particular village. In both the acquisitions, a compact block of land from four contiguous villages has been acquired. In other words, although, the acquired land is located in different villages, however, there does not appear to be much difference in the geographical location or topography of the land in all these villages as they lie adjoining to each other. There is no evidence to establish that the market value of the acquired land located in various contiguous villages was significantly different because of its locational advantage. The RC has committed an error in forming its opinion on the basis of the sale exemplars
of very small pieces of developed land which are dissimilar to the acquired land. While assessing the market value of such compact block of land, the court is required to be concious of its geographical location and the locational advantage, if any, of any individual parcel of land located in a particular village.
8.3.8 It is significant to note that the landowners have, no doubt, produced various layout plans, however, the same are required to be examined in view of the observations made in the previous order of the High Court while remanding the matter. Merely because a sale exemplar with respect to a parcel of land located in a particular village has been produced that in itself is not sufficient to prove the market value of the acquired land. Once there is undeveloped land is located near the city, there are chances of huge price variation depending upon the location of a particular parcel or plot.
8.4 DETERMINATION ON ISSUE NO.II (b) 8.4.1 Mr. Jasmer Chand, Advocate, the lead counsel, has heavily relied upon the judgment passed in Ashrafi's case (supra) to contend that the Supreme Court has laid down that once the price of the acquired land in the village has been determined, then, in the subsequent acquisitions, the Courts are bound to assess the market value after granting 12% cumulative increase per year on the market value assessed by the Supreme Court. This Bench has very sincerely read the judgment passed in Ashrafi's case (supra). It is evident that in the aforesaid judgment, itself, the Supreme Court has determined the market value of the acquired land located in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Union Territory of
Chandigarh. There were two sets of appeal arising from the District Ambala. The first appeal was with respect to the acquisition of the land in the villages, namely Patti Mahar, Saunda and Jandali acquired vide notification dated 26.05.1981. In the absence of any other evidence, the Court approved 12% cumulative increase in the facts of that case. However, in the considered opinion of the Court, it cannot be concluded that the Supreme Court has laid down that in all the subsequent acquisitions in the area, the market value of the acquired land is required to be cumulatively increased @ 12% per annum. It is noted here that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the Court is required to make an assessment on the basis of the evidence produced.
Hence, the Court assesses the market value after evaluating the evidence on the basis of the rationale or the conclusion drawn by the Presiding Judge. If proper evidence is not produced, the assessment is likely to reflect a different market value. Moreover, the Court, while assessing the market value, does not grant a declaration that the market value of a particular parcel of the acquired land is the exact amount assessed therein. There is also no element of declaration that the assessed amount is the market value of the land in a particular village or town or area. Furthermore, it is not always safe to outrightly rely upon a previous assessment made by the Court in a different acquisition proceeding. The market value of the land is subject to fluctuations. Moreover, the market value of the land never increases in a straight-line.
Ordinarily, the increase in the market value of the acquired land is not constant. Such increase is based upon various factors.
Act was issued on 28.02.2006, thereafter, it is evident from the perusal of the sale instances (Ex.R8, Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and Ex.R5), produced by the State in the second acquisition, that the price of the land did not increase much. The acquired land is located in one corner having no direct connectivity with the main city i.e. Ambala Cantonment. The acquired land does not have direct connectivity with the Railway Station or the Bus Stand. On the Eastern side of the land, there is a big parcel of land reserved for defence. Adjacent to it, there is a Railway line. On the Western side, there is village Materi Jattan. The already developed sectors 8, 9 and 10 are at a distance. It is to be noted here that the City of Ambala is in two parts.
The Railway Station and the Bus Stand are in Ambala Cantonment, which is located towards the Eastern side of the Railway line. The Bus Stand is located on the Eastern side of Grand Trunk Road, which is a National Highway, whereas, the acquired land is towards the Western side of the railway line. On that side, neither the Railway Station has an opening nor the acquired land has any direct connectivity with the Bus Stand. This appears to be the reason as to why the prices of the land have not increased significantly, particularly when the acquisition in the area started way back in the year 1973 and the land in question is located near to the city.
8.4.2 Hence, the judgment passed in Ashrafi's case (supra), with greatest respect, cannot be read in the manner suggested by the learned counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the relevant case laws on the subject, in Manoj Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others (2018) 13 SCC 96, has held as under:- "14. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an
outright reliance on the decision of Swaran Singh's case, without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh's case was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding.
As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bonafide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding.
and what is the evidence adduced in each case, may be that better evidence has been adduced in later case regarding the actual value of property and subsequent sale deeds after the award and before preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence not beyond that. Court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question.
The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of compensation in such cases award/judgment relating to an acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation". 8.4.3 Mr. Jasmer Chand, Advocate, has further, firmly, relied upon the observation made by the High Court while remanding back the matter. It is noted here that while remanding the case, the Court has set aside the judgment of the RC and called upon the Courts to re-decide the matter after permitting the parties to lead their respective evidence. Hence, one sentence in the order of remand cannot be read, in exclusion to the complete context, in the manner suggested by the learned counsel.
On a careful reading of the order of remand in the Ist round, this bench does not find that the RC has committed any infringement of the order remanding the cases.
8.4.4 The next argument of the learned counsel representing the appellants is on the basis of the judgment passed by the High Court in Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), while deciding the market value of the acquired land in the year 2000 for the construction of the water works. For the similar reasons, as noticed while examining the judgment in Ashrafi's case (supra,) the argument is found to be without substance and hence, rejected.
8.4.5 The next argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is to the effect that the entire area is a residential area, therefore, the average of all the relevant sale instances produced by the landowners should be taken to assess the market value. As already noticed, the landowners have produced the sale exemplars of very small parcels of the developed land. Most of the plots are either for the construction of the shops or the residential houses. Therefore, there is a significant dissimilarity between the nature of the acquired land and the various parcels of land covered by the sale instances relied upon by the landowners. Hence, it is not considered safe to rely upon their average.
8.4.6 Along with the written arguments, Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, has relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to support his arguments. The first judgment is in Mehrawal Khewajilal Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432. In this case, the Supreme Court was assessing the market value of 259 Kanals and 16 Marlas of the acquired land for the extension of the existing Grain Market at Faridkot. After noticing that the RC has averaged the prices of all the three sale exemplars, the Court considered it appropriate to re-examine
the matter and held that averaging was not appropriate in the facts of that case. The Court further held that the landowners are entitled to rely upon the sale exemplar depicting highest price and the deduction @ 20% in the facts of the case would be most appropriate. It is noted here that the Supreme Court has clearly held that the sale exemplar should be of a comparable parcel of land of the contemporaneous period. In the present case, none of the sale exemplars produced by the landowners are found comparable whereas the sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana are not only comparable but also executed during the contemporaneous period. Therefore, even if the sale exemplar of highest price is taken into consideration, the market value assessed by the LAC appears to be correct.
The second judgment relied upon is in Trishala Jain and Others v. State of Uttaranchal and Others (2011) 6 SCC 47. In this case, the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 30.01.1992 was issued for the construction of the Public Polytechnic Institute in District Dehradun. The Court, after framing the issues involved and noticing that there are a number of sale deeds between the family members and a clear attempt on the part of the claimant has been made to execute the sale deeds for the purpose of hiking up the land price, ultimately went on to hold that while assessing the market value, some amount of guess work is required to be carried by the Court.
8.4.7 The next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is in Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs. And others v. State of Haryana and Others (2008)2 SCC 568. In this judgment, the acquisition was made for the construction of a Sugar Mill. In the facts of the case, the Court held that
development cut @ 10% would be more appropriate. The next judgment relied upon by the learned counsel representing the appellants is in Bhagwathula Samana and Others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakhapatanam Municipality, Vishakhapatanam (1991) 4 SCC506. In this case, the Court was examining the two acquisitions for the construction of quarters for the staff of the Port Trust and National Highway Diversion Road. The Court, ultimately, held that the High Court erred in applying a deduction. The learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment passed in Manoj Kumar's case (supra). In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the awards and the judgments in independent cases, not being inter parties, are not binding precedents.
The Court further went on to hold that in the absence of evidence with regard to similar nature of land or comparable geographical location with the acquired land, the Courts would be doing more injustice while relying upon such precedents. The Court further held that reliance on a previous judgment given between different parties cannot be relied upon, blankly, without examining the facts of the case. While modifying the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court made certain strong observations, which have already been extracted.
8.4.8 It may be noted here that the learned counsel for the land owners has also relied upon the judgment in Kashmir Singh's (Supra). From a careful reading thereof, it is evident that in the facts of the aforesaid case, the court worked out the market value by escalating the amount assessed in the previous assessment of the Court in the Tohana area @ 12% cumulatively per year. However, the same rule cannot be applied universally
in all the acquisitions. After a careful reading of the judgment passed in Nelson Fernandez's (Supra), it is to be noted that the court was assessing the market value of the acquired land for Konkan Railways. The D.B. of the High Court reduced the market value, however, the Supreme Court, after reevaluating the evidence on record, enhanced the same. 8.4.9 Thus, undisputedly, as a proposition of law, the Supreme Court did not lay down that the Court, while assessing the market value, must follow the previous assessment made by the Court. It was rather held that when in the absence of the evidence of the comparable sale exemplars of contemporaneous period, such assessment of the market value can be relied upon examining the facts of the case.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Bench, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period should be preferred. If the sale exemplar of the acquired land itself is available, then, the Court can safely rely upon the same to the exclusion of the other evidence. The ultimate goal of the Court is to assess the market value on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The Court is required to assess the market value on which a willing purchaser is ready to buy from a willing seller. The market value is dependent on the various factors including potential of the geographical location of the acquired land. The purpose of acquisition and price in the surrounding areas are also relevant factors.
There can be innumerable other factors which affect the market value of a particular parcel of the land. The quest of the Court must always be to assess the correct market value on the basis of the material available on record.
previous judgment passed by the Court should be opted as a measure of last resort, only, as they open the doors for guess work, which the Courts should try to avoid. Therefore, it is only when no other evidence is available, the Court can rely upon the previous decisions to assess the market value of the acquired land.
8.5 In Regular First Appeal No. 2134 of 2021, an appeal arising from the second acquisition, the appellant has filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. Although, the aforesaid appeal is being separately decided, however, in order to assess the correct market value of the acquired land, it is considered appropriate to examine the same while deciding the main batch of appeals. In the additional evidence, the landowners seek permission to lead in evidence a sale deed dated 23.03.2006 (Annexure A-1), with respect to a plot measuring 240 square yards, located in village Jandali which was sold for 5,80,000/-. As already noticed, the ₹ landowners have produced a large number of sale deeds of smaller sized plots.
There is an extremely remote possibility that the plot in the said sale deed measuring only 240 square yards will be used for agricultural purposes. It is further evident from a careful perusal of the aforesaid sale deed that the plot measuring 240 square yards has been sold in a developed area, for the reason that, while giving description of the plot, the plot has been identified by certain plot numbers located on the North-Southern side. In this sale deed, the plot No. 46 measuring 240 square yards has been sold. In the considered view of this Bench, the aforesaid sale instance does not advance the case of the landowners.
9.
DECISION 9.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, it is, thereby, held that the judgment, passed by the RC dated 28.10.2016 with regard to the first acquisition and the judgments dated 09.11.2016, 25.03.2019 & 16.04.2021, passed by the RCs, in different batches with regard to the second acquisition are hereby set aside. Further, it is held that the awards passed by the Collector dated 03.03.2009 (Award No.4 in the first acquisition) and 17.07.2009 (Award No. 3 in the second acquisition) are correct. Consequently, the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are allowed and the appeals as well as cross-objections, filed by the landowners, are hereby dismissed.
9.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals, shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 19, 2022 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr.No Case No.
Petitioner's Name Respondent's Name 1.
RFA-1616-2017 AVINASH KAUR STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 2.
RFA-1622-2017 DEVINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 3.
RFA-1835-2017 RAM SARUP STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 4.
RFA-1845-2017 JOGINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 5.
RFA-1853-2017 RAJNI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 6.
RFA-2084-2017 BALJEET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 7.
RFA-2378-2017 PERM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 8.
RFA-2394-2017 SANTOKH SINGH TATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
9.
RFA-2415-2017 BALDEV SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 10.
RFA-2419-2017 MEHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 11.
RFA-2567-2017 SMT. ANU STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS L.A.C. SECTOR-8 PANCHKULA 12.
RFA-2953-2017 BHUPESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS L.A.C. SECTOR-8 PANCHKULA 13.
RFA-3145-2017 KUSHLA RANI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
14.
RFA-3404-2017 DAVINDER GAUD STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 15.
RFA-3431-2017 KOMAL GUPTA STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS L.A.C. SECTOR-8 PANCHKULA 16.
RFA-3432-2017 KAILASH RANI STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS L.A.C. SECTOR-8 PANCHKULA 17.
RFA-5109-2017 SHAMSHER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA THR LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ESTATE, HR SEC-8, PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER 18.
RFA-5374-2017 BALWANT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 19.
RFA-5410-2017 SUKHDEV SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 20.
RFA-463-2018 SATWINDER KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 21.
RFA-1040-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER AVINASH KAUR 22.
RFA-1050-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JAGDISH PARSHAD 23.
RFA-3825-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MEHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER 24.
RFA-3829-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER UJJAGAR SINGH 25.
RFA-4375-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DEVINDER SINGH 26.
RFA-212-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJNI 27.
RFA-1626-2017 HARNAIK SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 28.
RFA-466-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LADN ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA SHYAM SUNDER
29.
RFA-587-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LADN ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA MANJU JOSHI AND ANOTHER 30.
RFA-637-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJ KUMAR 31.
RFA-696-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PREM SINGH 32.
RFA-711-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMAR SHREE 33.
RFA-488-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KUSHLA RANI 34.
RFA-514-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DEVINDER GAUD 35.
RFA-516-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SAKASH CHABRA 36.
RFA-521-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SANTOKH SINGH 37.
RFA-522-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALDEV SINGH AND ORS 38.
RFA-529-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARJINDER KAUR AND OTHERS 39.
XOBJR-159-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND HARJINDER KAUR AND ORS ANOTHER 40.
RFA-528-2021 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LADN ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA SUKHDEV SINGH 41.
RFA-540-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JOGINDER SINGH 42.
RFA-542-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALJEET KAUR 43.
RFA-544-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LAKHWINDER KAUR 44.
XOBJR-160-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND LAKHWINDER KAUR ANOTHER 45.
RFA-549-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHAMSHER SINGH 46.
RFA-594-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALDEV RAJ AND OTHERS 47.
RFA-598-2020 STATE OF HARYANA BHADUR SINGH 48.
RFA-603-2021 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LADN ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA KAILASH RANI 49.
RFA-610-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATWINDER KAUR BALWANT SINGH 50.
RFA-618-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
51.
RFA-621-2021 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LADN ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA ANU 52.
RFA-628-2021 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LADN ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA SURINDER PAL KAUR 53.
RFA-638-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SARUP 54.
RFA-4073-2012 MANINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 55.
RFA-4657-2017 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJINDER KUMAR AND ORS 56.
RFA-1376-2021 BHRAMJEET SINGH RAGHAV STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 57.
RFA-2117-2021 SATBIR SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 58.
RFA-2134-2021 USHA RANI STATE OF HARYANA 59.
RFA-2147-2021 HEM RAJ STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 60.
RFA-2306-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER TARA DEVI 61.
RFA-2311-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KAMALJIT SINGH 62.
RFA-2326-2017 SATINDERJIT SINGH @ JUGNU STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 63.
RFA-2504-2019 MANJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 64.
RFA-3007-2019 TARA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 65.
RFA-3153-2019 CHANDER KALA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 66.
RFA-3317-2017 RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER.
SARAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THRU HIS LRS AND ORS.
67.
RFA-2673-2021 KAMALJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 68.
RFA-5413-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER JARNAIL 69.
RFA-5414-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. BABITA JAIN 70.
RFA-5415-2017 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER ARVINDPAL SINGH 71.
RFA-445-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. VIJAY LUXMI 72.
RFA-446-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. SAROJ RANI 73.
RFA-447-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER KIRPAL KAUR & ORS 74.
RFA-448-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAMESH SINGLA 75.
RFA-449-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & JAGTARAN SINGH AND ORS
ANOTHER 76.
RFA-450-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MOHINDERPAL SINGH 77.
RFA-451-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SINGH RAM & ORS 78.
RFA-452-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SH. AMRITPAL SINGH & ORS 79.
RFA-453-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. GURMEET KAUR & ORS 80.
RFA-454-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER NIRMAL SINGH & ORS 81.
RFA-455-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER AMARNATH 82.
RFA-456-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BIRA @ RAGHBIR KUMAR 83.
RFA-457-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. MOORTI DEVI 84.
RFA-458-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SURINDER KUMAR & ANOTHER 85.
RFA-459-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SURINDER SINGH 86.
RFA-460-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. JAGDEEP KAUR & ORS 87.
RFA-476-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER MANJIT SINGH KAPOOR 88.
RFA-477-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER KIRAN BALA & ANOTHER 89.
RFA-478-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SH. SURINDER PAL SINGH 90.
RFA-479-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARPAL SINGH & ORS 91.
RFA-772-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SURINDER NANDRA 92.
RFA-773-2018 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. RANJANA ARORA 93.
RFA-774-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RAGHBIR SINGH 94.
RFA-775-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER KEDAR NATH 95.
RFA-776-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER JOGINDER SINGH & ORS 96.
RFA-777-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER KARNAIL SINGH 97.
RFA-778-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AVTAR SINGH 98.
RFA-779-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. BANTO & ORS 99.
RFA-795-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SANJAY KUMAR 100.
RFA-796-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARIMITTAR 101.
RFA-797-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER NARENDER PAL SINGH GULIANI RATTAN LAL 102.
RFA-799-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
103.
RFA-800-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER KARNAIL SINGH & ORS 104.
RFA-807-2018 STATE OF HARYANA CHAMAN LAL GUPTA 105.
RFA-820-2018 STATE OF HARYANA LAJPAT RAI 106.
RFA-938-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RULDA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR'S 107.
RFA-939-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SMT. NACHCHTAR KAUR & OTHERS 108.
RFA-940-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KARAM SINGH AND ANOTHER 109.
RFA-941-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MADHU VIZ 110.
RFA-942-2018 STATE OF HARYANA ANOTHER MANJIT KAUR 111.
RFA-943-2018 STATE OF HARYANA SMT RANJANA ARORA 112.
RFA-944-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUKHPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 113.
RFA-945-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARPAL SINGH 114.
RFA-946-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJIT SINGH 115.
RFA-947-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DR NARENDER PAUL JINDAL 116.
RFA-948-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALDEV SINGH AND ORS 117.
RFA-949-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS 118.
RFA-950-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MOHINDER SINGH 119.
RFA-951-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DHARAMPAL AND ORS 120.
RFA-952-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMEL SINGH 121.
RFA-953-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JANAK RAJ 122.
RFA-1069-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BALDEV SINGH 123.
RFA-742-2017 KEDAR NATH STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR URBAN ESTATE SECTOR 8 PANCHKULA AND ANOTHER 124.
RFA-1433-2017 SURINDER PAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 125.
RFA-1434-2017 JOGINDER SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 126.
RFA-1435-2017 MOHINDER PAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 127.
RFA-1436-2017 KIRPAL KAUR SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 128.
RFA-1437-2017 JAGDEEP KAUR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 129.
RFA-1438-2017 AVTAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA
130.
RFA-1439-2017 AMRITPAL SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 131.
RFA-1474-2017 MANISHA MANOCHA STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 132.
RFA-1475-2017 KARAM SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 133.
RFA-1509-2017 JAGTARAN SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 134.
RFA-1822-2017 BALDEV SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 135.
RFA-1823-2017 SH. RATTAN LAL STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 136.
RFA-1973-2017 KIRAN BALA & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 137.
RFA-2308-2017 NIRMAL SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 138.
RFA-2309-2017 SURINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 139.
RFA-2310-2017 HARPAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 140.
RFA-2311-2017 BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 141.
RFA-2312-2017 SINGH RAM AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 142.
RFA-2313-2017 HARPAL SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 143.
RFA-2574-2017 MADHU VIZ STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 144.
RFA-2578-2017 JANAK RAJ STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 145.
RFA-2580-2017 SANJAY KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA ETC 146.
RFA-2581-2017 DR. NARINDER PAL JINDAL STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 147.
RFA-2582-2017 SURINDER NANDRA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 148.
RFA-2669-2017 GURMEET KAUR TRHOUGH HER GENERAL ATTORNEY SH. BHUPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 149.
RFA-2690-2017 SURINDER KUMAR & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 150.
RFA-2691-2017 SMT. NACHHATAR KAUR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 151.
RFA-2750-2017 MOHINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 152.
RFA-2801-2017 SUKHPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 153.
RFA-2813-2017 CHAMAN LAL GUPTA STATE OF HARYANA 154.
RFA-3318-2017 BIRA @ RAGHBIR KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 155.
RFA-3789-2017 RAMESH SINGLA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
156.
RFA-3795-2017 BABITA JAIN STATE OF HARYANA AND
ANOTHER 157.
RFA-3796-2017 AMAR NATH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
158.
RFA-3800-2017 HARI MITTAR SINCE DECEASED THRU HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
159.
RFA-4023-2017 BANTO (NOW DECEASED) THR LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 160.
RFA-4024-2017 DHARAM PAL AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 161.
RFA-4901-2017 VIJAY LUXMI STATE OF HARYANA 162.
RFA-5304-2017 ARVIND PAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 163.
RFA-5573-2017 LAJPAT RAI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA 164.
RFA-169-2018 MANJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 165.
RFA-323-2018 RULDA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 166.
RFA-895-2020 RAGHBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 167.
RFA-485-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SINGH 168.
RFA-487-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JAGIR KAUR 169.
RFA-490-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SHARMILA 170.
RFA-491-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. URMILA THAKUR 171.
RFA-496-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURINDER PAL SINGH 172.
RFA-499-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JANIK DEVI 173.
RFA-500-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GOBIND SINGH 174.
RFA-502-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. KANWALJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER 175.
RFA-512-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SARAVJIT KAUR 176.
RFA-517-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAVINDER KUMAR 177.
RFA-525-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. MEENA BIST AND OTHERS 178.
RFA-526-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMAIL KAUR 179.
RFA-530-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH KUMAR 180.
RFA-531-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHRI SATPAL 181.
RFA-534-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. MALIKA KANSAL SMT. GURBACHAN KAUR 182.
RFA-539-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
183.
RFA-543-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SARVJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER 184.
RFA-545-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARVINDER SINGH 185.
RFA-547-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BINA RANI 186.
RFA-548-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ANGREJ SINGH AND OTHERS 187.
RFA-551-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS MOHINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER 188.
RFA-1039-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS SARVJIT SINGH 189.
RFA-600-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMEET KAUR 190.
RFA-609-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LAKHWINDER KAUR 191.
RFA-612-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. NASIB KAUR AND OTHERS 192.
RFA-3918-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BALDEV SINGH 193.
RFA-4970-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARBILAS SINGH 194.
RFA-5075-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURDEV SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS 195.
RFA-5076-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RUMAL KAUR 196.
RFA-5077-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER JASWINDER SINGH 197.
RFA-5078-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER PARAMJIT SINGH 198.
RFA-5080-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER SAHAB KAUR 199.
RFA-5081-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER RULDA SINGH 200.
RFA-5082-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARBHAJAN SINGH & ANOTHER 201.
RFA-5083-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER HARJIT SINGH 202.
RFA-5084-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DIDAR SINGH @ DARA SINGH 203.
RFA-5085-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER GURTEJ SINGH 204.
RFA-5087-2018 STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER BUDH RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS 205.
RFA-5089-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SAHAB SINGH & ORS 206.
RFA-5200-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ROSHAN LAL 207.
RFA-5201-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURCHARAN SINGH 208.
RFA-614-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND PARAMJEET KAUR
ANOTHER 209.
RFA-615-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PROMILA RANI 210.
RFA-634-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. GURMEET KAUR 211.
RFA-57-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMEET SINGH 212.
RFA-58-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARMOHINDER SINGH 213.
RFA-59-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JARNAIL SINGH 214.
RFA-60-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JARNAIL SINGH 215.
RFA-61-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARBANS SINGH 216.
RFA-62-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANGATVEER SINGH 217.
RFA-63-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUKHWINDER KAUR 218.
RFA-64-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NAIB SINGH 219.
RFA-66-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PAYARA LAL @ PYARA SINGH (DECEASED) THORUGH HIS LRS 220.
RFA-67-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SARDARA SINGH 221.
RFA-68-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMAIL SINGH 222.
RFA-69-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AVTAR SINGH 223.
RFA-71-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LABH SINGH 224.
RFA-72-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AVTAR SINGH 225.
RFA-1034-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER SHAMSHER SINGH 226.
RFA-1035-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER SMT. KARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS 227.
RFA-1036-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER GURMAIL SINGH 228.
RFA-1037-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER SMT. ISHRO DEVI 229.
RFA-1041-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER SHUGAN CHAND GUPTA VIKRANTPAL SINGH MINOR SON OF MOHINDER SINGH AND 230.
RFA-1043-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
OTHERS 231.
RFA-1044-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER GURMAIL SINGH 232.
RFA-1045-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GRAM PANCHAYAT KANWLA THROUGH ITS SARPANCH 233.
RFA-1046-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR PANCHKULA SHRI RAJ KUMAR 234.
RFA-1047-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, PANCHKULA PURAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 235.
RFA-1049-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR SMT. SEEMA DEVI 236.
RFA-1051-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER DAHARAM PAL 237.
RFA-1052-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NIRANJAN SINGH AND OTHERS 238.
RFA-3823-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANPREET SINGH ALIAS MANDEEP SINGH 239.
RFA-3824-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NIDHI CHAUDHARY 240.
RFA-3826-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMARJIT KAUR 241.
RFA-3827-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ANGREZ SINGH AND ANOTHER 242.
RFA-3828-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. BALJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER 243.
RFA-3830-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PAL SINGH 244.
RFA-3831-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. PAL KAUR @ HARPAL KAUR 245.
RFA-3832-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS 246.
RFA-3833-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CHET SINGH 247.
RFA-3834-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER 248.
RFA-3835-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DALBIR SINGH 249.
RFA-3836-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHAMSHER SINGH 250.
RFA-3837-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LABH SINGH 251.
RFA-3838-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER GURDEV RAM AND ANOTHER 252.
RFA-3839-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
253.
RFA-3840-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SARDARO DEVI 254.
RFA-3841-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURDEV KAUR 255.
RFA-3842-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANN SINGH 256.
RFA-3901-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMAR SINGH 257.
RFA-3902-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATINDERJIT SINGH ALIAS JUGNU SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS 258.
RFA-3903-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NIDHAN SINGH 259.
RFA-3904-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LUXMI DEVI AND OTHERS 260.
RFA-3905-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PAYARE LAL 261.
RFA-3906-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS 262.
RFA-3907-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JARNAIL KAUR 263.
RFA-3908-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALKAR SINGH 264.
RFA-3909-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUKHWINDER SINGH 265.
RFA-3910-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PRITAM SINGH 266.
RFA-3911-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VIKRAM SINGH 267.
RFA-3912-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. VEERANWALI AND OTHERS 268.
RFA-3913-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SANTOKH SINGH 269.
RFA-3914-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJESH AND ANOTHER 270.
RFA-3915-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURPREET SINGH 271.
RFA-3916-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURDEV SINGH 272.
RFA-3917-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BACHNA 273.
RFA-3918-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT SURINDER KAUR ALIAS KRISHNA DEVI 274.
RFA-3919-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. RAJ RANI AND OTHERS 275.
RFA-3920-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JASPAL KAUR 276.
RFA-3921-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHYAM LAL 277.
RFA-3923-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. KAMLA DEVI 278.
RFA-3924-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND AMARJIT SINGH
ANOTHER 279.
RFA-4363-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GOPAL DASS 280.
RFA-4365-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER 281.
RFA-4366-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SARWAN SINGH 282.
RFA-4367-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SH. JASBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 283.
RFA-4368-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMRIK SINGH 284.
RFA-4369-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN ESTATES, SCO NO.61,SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA MANINDER SINGH 285.
RFA-4370-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURDAS SINGH 286.
RFA-4371-2019 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, AMBALA GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER 287.
RFA-4372-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KARNAIL KAUR 288.
RFA-4376-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SARWAN SINGH 289.
RFA-4377-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DEVRAJ 290.
RFA-4378-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARAMJEET KAUR 291.
RFA-4379-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ASHA SHARMA 292.
RFA-4380-2019 STATE OF HARYANA KANTA RANI 293.
RFA-4381-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATPAL AND OTHERS 294.
RFA-4382-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAMPAL 295.
RFA-4383-2019 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JEERAM 296.
RFA-203-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LAKHMIR SINGH 297.
RFA-204-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CHARANJIT SINGH 298.
RFA-206-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARDEV SINGH 299.
RFA-207-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SANURADHA 300.
RFA-208-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN ESTATES, SCO NO.61,SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
301.
RFA-209-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GOBIND SINGH 302.
RFA-210-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMRIK SINGH 303.
RFA-211-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJIT SINGH 304.
RFA-214-2020 STATE OF HARYANA RAMU SHARMA 305.
RFA-465-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. VIDYA DEVI 306.
RFA-467-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DINESH SINGH RAWAT 307.
RFA-469-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DHARAMVIR SINGH 308.
RFA-471-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH 309.
RFA-472-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. USHA 310.
RFA-473-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SAWAN SINGH 311.
RFA-474-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM KISHAN 312.
RFA-475-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS 313.
RFA-476-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALWINDER SINGH 314.
RFA-477-2020 STATE OF HARYANA JASWANT SINGH 315.
RFA-481-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RANJIT SINGH 316.
RFA-482-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJEET SINGH AND OTHERS 317.
RFA-483-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ANJU 318.
RFA-485-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMAR PARKASH GOEL 319.
RFA-487-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KARAMJEET KAUR AND OTHERS 320.
RFA-488-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, URBAN ESTATE, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.
AVTAR SINGH 321.
RFA-579-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NASIB KAUR AND OTHERS 322.
RFA-580-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MALKIAT KAUR 323.
RFA-581-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALBIR SINGH 324.
RFA-582-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARDEEP KUMAR SAIGAL 325.
RFA-583-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA RAMA RANI AND ANOTHER
326.
RFA-585-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-67, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA DIDAR SINGH 327.
RFA-588-2020 STATE OF HARYANA SH. RAHUL GUPTA 328.
RFA-589-2020 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. VEETA ARORA 329.
RFA-591-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. REKHA GOYAL 330.
RFA-592-2020 STATE OF HARYANA DIDAR SINGH 331.
RFA-594-2020 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. KUSAM BALA 332.
RFA-595-2020 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. SAROJ MITTAL 333.
RFA-596-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUNIL MAHAJAN AND ANOTHER 334.
RFA-601-2020 STATE OF HARYANA SHUGAN CHAND GUPTA 335.
RFA-602-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJINDER KUMAR 336.
RFA-603-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER 337.
RFA-636-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SANDEEP KUMAR TIWARI 338.
RFA-638-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AJAY KUMAR 339.
RFA-639-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JARNAIL SINGH 340.
RFA-640-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARNEK SINGH 341.
RFA-641-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. MEENA 342.
RFA-642-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JAGDISH PARSHAD 343.
RFA-643-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MOHIT KUMAR 344.
RFA-644-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HAYAT SINGH 345.
RFA-645-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHYAM LAL 346.
RFA-646-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMRIK SINGH 347.
RFA-648-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KAILASH RANI 348.
RFA-649-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. VEENA RANI 349.
RFA-651-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMARJIT KAUR 350.
RFA-653-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMRIK SINGH 351.
RFA-654-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BABU SINGH AND OTHERS 352.
RFA-655-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HANS RAJ AND ORS SMT. MEENAKSHI GOEL 353.
RFA-656-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
354.
RFA-657-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALWINDER KUMAR 355.
RFA-658-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. LEELA WATI DEVI 356.
RFA-659-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS 357.
RFA-660-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JASBIR KAUR 358.
RFA-661-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JASWANT RAM AND ANOTHER 359.
RFA-682-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER 360.
RFA-683-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURINDER KUMAR 361.
RFA-684-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ANIL KUMAR 362.
RFA-685-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR PANCHKULA URMILA DEVI 363.
RFA-686-2020 STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, SCO-61, SECTOR-8, PANCHKULA HARBANS KAUR 364.
RFA-687-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LABH SINGH AND OTHERS 365.
RFA-689-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MISHRA QUERESHI 366.
RFA-690-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARVEEN KUMAR THROUGH HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY 367.
RFA-693-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. KRISHNA DEVI 368.
RFA-694-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GHANSHYAM LAL MURARI (G.S.L.MURARI) 369.
RFA-697-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. VEENA RANI 370.
RFA-700-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DAYA SINGH 371.
RFA-701-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER TEJPAL 372.
RFA-702-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. RAVINDER KAUR 373.
RFA-703-2020 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. MAHAVEER 374.
RFA-704-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER 375.
RFA-709-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATISH KUMAR 376.
RFA-2278-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NAR SINGH DASS ACHINT 377.
RFA-1614-2017 RAM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 378.
RFA-1615-2017 GURMAIL KAUR STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
379.
RFA-1617-2017 RAMU SHARMA STATE OF HARYANA 380.
RFA-1618-2017 PROMILA RANI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 381.
RFA-1620-2017 JARNAIL SINGH & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 382.
RFA-1619-2017 SARWAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 383.
RFA-1621-2017 HARJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 384.
RFA-1624-2017 SARAVJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 385.
RFA-1625-2017 KAILASH RANI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 386.
RFA-1827-2017 SURINDER KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
387.
FA-1830-2017 ANIL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
388.
RFA-1833-2017 SMT. MENAKSHI GOEL STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
389.
RFA-1834-2017 MALKIAT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
390.
RFA-1837-2017 PARVEEN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
391.
RFA-1838-2017 BALJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
392.
RFA-1841-2017 AMRIK SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
393.
RFA-1842-2017 MANJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
394.
RFA-1843-2017 JARNAIL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
395.
RFA-1844-2017 BINA RANI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 396.
RFA-1847-2017 SURINDER PAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
397.
RFA-1854-2017 LABH SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
398.
RFA-1855-2017 PARAMJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
399.
RFA-1856-2017 SMT. MALIKA KANSAL STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 400.
RFA-1857-2017 GURMEET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
401.
RFA-1859-2017 NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
402.
RFA-1979-2017 NARSINGH DASS ACHINT STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
403.
RFA-2015-2017 DIDAR SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA 404.
RFA-2016-2017 AMARJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 405.
RFA-2017-2017 HARDEV SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS
406.
RFA-2018-2017 DEV RAJ STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 407.
RFA-2019-2017 BALDEV SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 408.
RFA-2021-2017 PARVINDER KAUR & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 409.
RFA-2078-2017 SAHAB KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 410.
RFA-2079-2017 JASWANT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 411.
RFA-2080-2017 RAJINDER KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 412.
RFA-2081-2017 PARVINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 413.
RFA-2082-2017 GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER.
STATE OF HARYANA 414.
RFA-2085-2017 NIRANJAN SINGH AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
415.
RFA-2086-2017 BALJINDER KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
416.
RFA-2088-2017 VIKRANT PAL SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 417.
RFA-2090-2017 HANS RAJ SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
418.
RFA-2291-2017 AMRIK SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
419.
RFA-2292-2017 SMT. URMILA THAKUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
420.
RFA-2293-2017 KIRNA RANI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
421.
RFA-2294-2017 HARNEK SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
422.
RFA-2295-2017 NIDHI CHAUDHARY STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
423.
RFA-2296-2017 DHARAMVIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
424.
RFA-2297-2017 SANURADHA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
425.
RFA-2298-2017 RAVINDER KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
426.
RFA-2299-2017 SMT.VEETA ARORA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
427.
RFA-2326-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJIT KAUR 428.
RFA-2328-2017 JASWANT RAM AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
429.
RFA-2329-2017 RUMAL KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
430.
RFA-2330-2017 SMT. RAVINDER KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
431.
RFA-2331-2017 GURMEET SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
432.
RFA-2332-2017 GURDEV RAM AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
433.
RFA-2333-2017 ROSHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) TH LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
434.
RFA-2334-2017 SARVJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
435.
RFA-2336-2017 NIDHAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
436.
RFA-2337-2017 SMT. SURINDER KAUR @ KRISHNA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
437.
RFA-2338-2017 SMT. ASHA SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
438.
RFA-2339-2017 SARDARA SINGH THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
439.
RFA-2340-2017 NAIB SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
440.
RFA-2341-2017 CHARANJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
441.
RFA-2346-2017 GURMAIL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
442.
RFA-2347-2017 BACHNA @ BACHAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
443.
RFA-2348-2017 RULDA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
444.
RFA-2349-2017 SMT. PAL KAUR @ HARPAL KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
445.
RFA-2350-2017 BALKAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
446.
RFA-2351-2017 SHAMSHER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
447.
RFA-2390-2017 BALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
448.
RFA-2391-2017 SMT. VEENA RANI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
449.
RFA-2392-2017 GURDEV SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
450.
RFA-2396-2017 SMT. VEENA RANI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
451.
RFA-2407-2017 PYARA LAL @ PYARA SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
452.
RFA-2408-2017 MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
453.
RFA-2409-2017 JASPAL KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
454.
RFA-2410-2017 AMAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
455.
RFA-2411-2017 KRISHNA DEVI ETC STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
456.
RFA-2412-2017 GURCHARAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
457.
RFA-2413-2017 SMT. KAMLA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
458.
RFA-2416-2017 SUKHWINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
459.
RFA-2417-2017 GULAB SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
460.
RFA-2418-2017 BALVINDER KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
461.
RFA-2420-2017 JEE RAM STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
462.
RFA-2421-2017 GURDAS SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
463.
RFA-2422-2017 SARWAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
464.
RFA-2423-2017 SMT. KARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
465.
RFA-2424-2017 GURTEJ SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
466.
RFA-2425-2017 JARNAIL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
467.
RFA-2426-2017 SUKHWINDER KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
468.
RFA-2428-2017 GURDEV SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
469.
RFA-2429-2017 SMT. VEERAN WALI (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
470.
RFA-2430-2017 RANJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
471.
RFA-2431-2017 LAKHWINDER KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
472.
RFA-2432-2017 SHAYAM LAL STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
473.
RFA-2433-2017 PRITAM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
474.
RFA-2434-2017 GURPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
475.
RFA-2512-2017 GURDEV KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
476.
RFA-2518-2017 PRADEEP KUMAR SAIGAL STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 477.
RFA-2519-2017 SMT. USHA STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 478.
RFA-2520-2017 RAM CHANDER & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 479.
RFA-2625-2017 SARDARO DEVI STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 480.
RFA-2527-2017 SHAYAM LAL (DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 481.
RFA-2528-2017 SMT. LUXMI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 482.
RFA-2529-2017 GURPREET SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 483.
RFA-2530-2017 AVTAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
484.
RFA-2531-2017 AMRIK SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 485.
RFA-2532-2017 DAYA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 486.
RFA-2533-2017 BALWINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 487.
RFA-2534-2017 VIDYA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 488.
RFA-2537-2017 SMT. NASIB KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 489.
RFA-2538-2017 RAM KISHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 490.
RFA-2539-2017 ANGREZ SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 491.
RFA-2540-2017 LABH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 492.
RFA-2541-2017 AVTAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 493.
RFA-2544-2017 MOHIT KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 494.
RFA-2545-2017 DIDAR SINGH @ DARA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 495.
RFA-2546-2017 DALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 496.
RFA-2615-2017 SMT. KUSUM BALA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 497.
RFA-2617-2017 SMT.MEENA BIST AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 498.
RFA-2618-2017 GURPAL SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 499.
RFA-2619-2017 RAM PAL STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 500.
RFA-2620-2017 HARMOHINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 501.
RFA-2621-2017 BUDH RAM STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 502.
RFA-2623-2017 VIKRAM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 503.
RFA-2624-2017 GURMAIL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 504.
RFA-2427-2017 HARBEL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 505.
RFA-2628-2017 LABH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 506.
RFA-2700-2017 SMT. JARNAIL KAUR (DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 507.
RFA-2701-2017 DIDAR SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA 508.
RFA-2717-2017 SMT.SEEMA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA 509.
RFA-2718-2017 SMT.KRISHNA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
510.
RFA-2722-2017 SMT.ISHRO DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
511.
RFA-2723-2017 GRAM PANCHAYAT KANWALA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
512.
RFA-2727-2017 ANGREJ SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
513.
RFA-2741-2017 PAYARE LAL (DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 514.
RFA-2764-2017 HARBHAJAN SINGH ETC STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 515.
RFA-2765-2017 MANGATVIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 516.
RFA-2766-2017 GURPREET SINGH ETC STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 517.
RFA-2848-2017 PARAMJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 518.
RFA-2849-2017 GURDEV SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 519.
RFA-2850-2017 RAMESHWAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 520.
RFA-2851-2017 PARAMJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 521.
RFA-2852-2017 PAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 522.
RFA-2853-2017 HARBANS SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 523.
RFA-2854-2017 SANTOKH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 524.
RFA-2856-2017 JASWINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 525.
RFA-2857-2017 AMRIK SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 526.
RFA-2859-2017 MAAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 527.
RFA-2862-2017 SAHAB SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 528.
RFA-2944-2017 SMT.GURBACHAN KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 529.
RFA-2945-2017 SMT. KULDEEP KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 530.
RFA-2947-2017 GOBIND SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 531.
RFA-2948-2017 JASBIR KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 532.
RFA-2949-2017 GURMAIL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 533.
RFA-3226-2017 LAKHMIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 534.
RFA-3401-2017 AVTAR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 535.
RFA-3402-2017 DAHARAM PAL SINCE DECEASED THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 536.
RFA-3403-2017 SATPAL & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER 537.
RFA-3405-2017 JANKI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA &
ANOTHER 538.
RFA-3494-2017 INDU BALA STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH ITS L.A.C. SECTOR-8 PANCHKULA 539.
RFA-4183-2017 BABU SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 540.
RFA-4184-2017 HARBILAS SINGH (DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 541.
RFA-4185-2017 KARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 542.
RFA-4510-2017 AMARJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 543.
RFA-5383-2017 RAJ KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA 544.
RFA-221-2018 SHUGAN CHAND GUPTA STATE OF HARYANA 545.
RFA-222-2018 SHUGAN CHAND GUPTA STATE OF HARYANA 546.
RFA-223-2018 RAHUL GUPTA STATE OF HARYANA 547.
RFA-562-2018 SARAVJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 548.
RFA-2052-2018 RAMA RANI AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 549.
RFA-3111-2019 MANINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA, THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 550.
RFA-3159-2019 AMARJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 551.
RFA-2383-2021 MANJEET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 552.
RFA-2390-2021 KANWALJEET KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 553.
RFA-2626-2017 RANBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA ETC 554.
RFA-412-2020 DHARAMVIR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 555.
RFA-2131-2021 BALJIT KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 556.
RFA-2152-2021 BALJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 557.
RFA-2158-2021 VINKAL BINDRA AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA 558.
RFA-2159-2021 JASBIR KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 559.
RFA-1374-2021 ASHOK KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA 560.
RFA-2300-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJMATI DEVI 561.
RFA-2301-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ASHOK KUMAR 562.
RFA-2303-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJINDER SINGH ONKAR SINGH 563.
RFA-2304-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
564.
RFA-2307-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS 565.
RFA-2308-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DHARAMVIR 566.
RFA-2309-2021 STATE OF HARYANA CHANNA 567.
RFA-2310-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DHARAMJEET 568.
RFA-2312-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJIT SINGH AND OTHERS 569.
RFA-2318-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURMUKH SINGH 570.
RFA-2321-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJIT SINGH AND ORS 571.
RFA-2324-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANJIT SINGH AND ORS 572.
RFA-2325-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GURCHARAN SINGH 573.
RFA-2498-2019 SHEELA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 574.
RFA-2499-2019 CHANNA STATE OF HARYANA 575.
RFA-2503-2019 RAJINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 576.
RFA-2509-2019 RAJMATI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 577.
RFA-2510-2019 GURMUKH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 578.
RFA-2660-2019 DHARAMJEET STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 579.
RFA-3128-2019 SMT. SUKBIR KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 580.
RFA-3502-2019 PAWAN KUMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 581.
RFA-604-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARVINDER KAUR(MINOR DAUGHTER) AND ANOTHER 582.
RFA-2726-2017 MANJEET SINGH AND ORS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER.
583.
RFA-2863-2017 SHAMSHER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA ETC 584.
RFA-2652-2021 GHAN SHAYAM LAL MURARI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 585.
RFA-2702-2021 SHASHI BHUSHAN AND OTHERS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER 586.
RFA-5448-2017 HARBANS KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 587.
RFA-1632-2019 SUNITA RANI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 588.
RFA-1629-2019 INDERJIT SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 589.
RFA-1628-2019 BHUPINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 590.
RFA-1631-2019 AJMER KAUR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
591.
RFA-6346-2018 KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 592.
RFA-6345-2018 SAMSHER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 593.
RFA-6347-2018 KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 594.
RFA-6349-2018 GURMEL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 595.
RFA-6348-2018 KARNAIL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 596.
RFA-647-2020 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KIRNA RANI 597.
RFA-861-2020 SATPAL STATE OF HARYANA 598.
RFA-2154-2021 GOPAL DASS AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 599.
RFA-798-2018 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. MANISHA MANOCHA 600.
RFA-489-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. KULDEEP KAUR 601.
RFA-1381-2021 RAKESH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 602.
RFA-2129-2021 AMIT KUMAR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 603.
RFA-2135-2021 KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 604.
RFA-2136-2021 KRIPAL KAUR THROUGH HER SPA HARJINDER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA 605.
RFA-2143-2021 JAI PARKASH JADEV STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 606.
RFA-2141-2021 RAJNI RANI AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 607.
RFA-4336-2019 NARENDER PAL SINGH GULIANI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER