Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Sandeep And ORS
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular First Appeal No. 1059 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.10.2021 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Sandeep and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present:
Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, for the HSIIDC.
Mr. Parveen Dahiya and Mr. Saajan Singla, Advocates for the appellant (s) (In RFA-1193-2021 & RFA-1329-2021). Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-1334-2021, RFA-1402-2021, RFA-1392-2021, RFA-1392-2021, RFA-1396-2021 And RFA-1362-2021).
Mr. Rajender Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RFA-1243-2021.
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the landowners in RFA-1390-2021.
Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-1342-2021, RFA-1349-2021, RFA-1385-2021 and RFA-1398-2021).
Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-1322-2021, RFA-1328-2021, RFA-1344-2021, RFA-1347-2021, RFA-1348-2021, RFA-1357-2021, RFA-1367-2021, RFA-1400-2021 And RFA-1428-2021).
Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1.
By this judgment, a bunch of appeals (details whereof are available at the end of the judgment) filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") with respect to acquisition of land located in the villages, namely Saidpur, Pehladpur and Gopalpur, arising from separate but identical judgments passed by the Reference Court determining the same market value, shall stand disposed of. The acquisition of the said land was initiated on 01.04.2010 by a common notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act while proposing to acquire approximately 3300 acres of land, located in the villages, namely Gopalpur, Pipli, Saidpur, Kundal, Rampur, Ferozepur Bangar, Nizampur Khurd, Sohati, Pehladpur and Burana, Tehsil Kharkoda, District Sonepat.
2.
The brief particulars of the land, acquired village-wise along with the award, are noted as under:- 1.
Date of notification U/s 4 : 2/1/4-IIB-II-2010 dated 1.4.2010 Date of notification U/s 6 : 2/1/4-IIB-II-2010 dated 4.4.2011 No. & date of award : Award no. 47 dated 25.03.2013 Total land acquired : 464 Acre 2 Kanal and 8 Marla Name of village : Gopalpur Purpose : For development of Industrial and Modern Township in revenue estate of village Gopalpur, Pipli, Saidpur, Kundal, Rampur, Firozpur, Bangar, Nizampur Khurd, Sohati, Pahaladpur and Borana Tehsil Kharkhoda and District Sonepat.
Rate awarded by LAC : Rs 30 lacs per acre for every kind of land.
2.
Date of notification U/s 4 : 2/1/4-IIB-II-2010 dated 1.4.2010 Date of notification U/s 6 : 2/1/4-IIB-II-2010 dated 4.4.2011 No. & date of award : Award no. 53 dated 03.4.2013 Total land acquired : 85Acre 2 K 19Marla Name of village : Saidpur Purpose : For development of Industrial and Modern Township in revenue estate of village Gopalpur, Pipli, Saidpur, Kundal, Rampur, Firozpur, Bangar, Nizampur Khurd, Sohati, Pahaladpur and Borana Tehsil Kharkhoda and District Sonepat.
Rate awarded by LAC : Rs.35.00 lacs per acre up to the depth of 5 acres from Kharkhoda Delhi road and Rs 30 lacs per acre for remaining land.
3.
Date of notification U/s 4 : 2/1/4-IIB-II-2010 dated 1.4.2010 Date of notification U/s 6 : 2/1/4-IIB-II-2010 dated 4.4.2011 No. & date of award : Award no. 45 dated 13.03.2013 Total land acquired : 71Acre 7 K 10Marla Name of village : Pehladpur Purpose : For development of Industrial and Modern Township in revenue estate of village Gopalpur, Pipli, Saidpur, Kundal, Rampur, Firozpur, Bangar, Nizampur Khurd, Sohati, Pahaladpur and Borana Tehsil Kharkhoda and District Sonepat.
Rate awarded by LAC : Rs 30 lacs per acre for every kind of land.
3.
FACTS 3.1 In order to utilize the land for developing the Industrial Model Township, the State of Haryana vide a notification dated 01.04.2010 proposed to acquire the land in as many as ten villages, measuring 3300
acres approximately. The declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2005 and the separate awards were announced on different dates while assessing the same market value of the acquired land i.e. @ 30,00,000/- per acre, payable with all the statutory benefits under the ₹ 1894 Act. On the various applications filed by the land owners, the cases were referred to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence, has assessed the market value of the acquired land upto the depth of 5 acres abutting KharkhodaDelhi Road @ 42,00,000/- per acre, whereas the market value of the ₹ remaining land has been assessed @ 37,00,000/- per acre. ₹ 3.
2 The appeals arising from the village Nizampur Khurd with respect to the acquisition in question have already been decided in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Mahesh Kumar and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 1190 of 2020 and Other connected cases, vide judgment dated 22.03.2021). The relevant discussion is extracted as under:- "Before this Court proceeds to adjudicate upon the matter, it will be appropriate to note that the learned Additional District Judge has determined the compensation on the basis of comparable sales method of valuation of the land. Both the sides have produced copies of the various sale deeds in order to support their respective claims.
Ex Sale deed No.
Date Area Amount Rs. Name of village Approximate Value per acre P1/PW3/ E & P7 26.10.2009 4K-16M 42,00,000/- Sohti 70,00,000/- P2 13.02.2007 210 sq.yards 2,00,000/- Nizampur khurd 46,09,524/- P3 & P11 25.03.2013 7K 11 M 1,03,81,250/ - Pipli 1,10,00,000/- P4 30.01.2003 3Acre4K-3M 1,76,05,000/ - Jattola 50,03,200/- P5& P12 15.01.2014 1 Acre 1,00,00,000/ - Saidpur 1,00,00,000/- PW3/B & P9 18.06.2009 117sq yards 1,92,000/- Nizampaur Khurd 79,42,564/- PW3/C & P10 13.02.2007 210Sq.
yards 2,00,000/- Nizampur Khurd 46,09,523/- PW3/D/ P8 29.03.2010 240Sq.ya rds 3,84,000/- Nizampur Khurd 77,44,000/- The sale deed dated 13.02.2007 has been marked twice i.e. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3/C/P10.
On the other hand, HSIIDC has produced the copies of the sale deeds, which again have been summarized in a tabulated form, and are extracted as under:
Ex.
Sale deed No.
Date Area Amount Rs.
Name of village Approxima te Value per acre R2 2239 15.01.2009 4K-2M 10,25,000/- Nizampur 20,00,000/- R3 564 25.06.2009 1 K-17 M 5,78,500/- Nizampur Khurd 25,01,622/- R4 1451 16.10.2009 1 K-15 M 5,47000/- Nizampur Khurd 25,00,571/- R5 1311 25.09.2009 2Acre 6 K5 M 97,34,375/- Saidpur 35,00,000/- R6 61 20.04.2009 3K-8M 8,50,000/- Saidpur 20,00,000/- R7 &8 2745 01.02.2010 2 Acre 50,00,000/- Rampur 25,00,000/- R8 &9 21.8.2009 10 Bigha 52,06,612/- Rampur 24,99,573/- R10 256 25.05.2009 4B1Bishwa 15,19,000/- Kundal 18,01,022/- R11 31 08.04.2010 3 Bigha 15,62,500/- Kundal 25,00,000/-
Ex.
Sale deed No.
Date Area Amount Rs.
Name of village Approxima te Value per acre R12 05 01.04.2010 08 K 26,00,000/- Firozepur Bangar 26,00,000/- On behalf of the owners, Mahinder Singh appeared as PW.1, Shamsher Singh son of Partap Singh as PW.2, Deepak Kumar as PW.3, Shamsher Singh son of Prem Singh as PW.4, Ajay Rana as PW.5, Virender Singh as PW.6 and Madan Sangwan as PW.7. On the other hand, Jaibir Singh, Manager, HSIIDC, has appeared as RW.1.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the location of the land acquired. The land is situated in the National Capital Region. The village Nizampur Khurd abuts the boundary of the Delhi State. Towards the State of Delhi, the village is Qutubgarh, whereas in the State of Haryana, the village is Nizampur Khurd. There are two major roads passing through the land, one is Kharkhoda-Delhi Road, whereas the other is a road starting from Biswamil via Nahra to Bahadurgarh, which connects to National Highway No. 10 i.e. Delhi Rohtak Road. This road is also a major district road. Still further, the land acquired is located 9 Kms. from Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi. The land of village Nizampur Khurd is located 1 Km. away from the Western Peripheral Road, which is commonly known as Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Road. The SubDivision town Kharkhoda is at a distance of 4-5 Kms., whereas the small towns Kundli and Rai are at a distance of 17 Kms.
Thus, the land has a great potential for being put to use for commercial and industrial activity.
It has also come on record that already there are six industries working from the area in question. Mr. Jasbir Singh, Manager, HSIIDC, has admitted that the Western Peripheral Express Way passes by the side of the acquired land and the land is situated on Kharkhoda-Delhi Road. He also admits that Delhi border is about 11⁄2 Kms. away from the acquired land and there are some industries near the acquired land apart from a fuel station.
Learned senior counsel appearing for HSIIDC has challenged the correctness of the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge for the following reasons:- 1) The learned Additional District Judge has relied upon a judgment passed in Jasmer Singh v. State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana Broadguage Rail Line 2017 ( 5) RCR (Civil) 281 which has already been set aside by the Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal No. 23530-23531 of 2017 on 06.12.2017. He further contends that there is no prohibition in taking into consideration the sale deeds depicting the market price less which is less than the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector in its award. He drew the attention of the Court to Section 25 of the 1894 Act.
2) He further submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has overlooked that the sale deeds of village Nizampur, relied upon by the owners, were of very small pieces of the land and therefore, could not be used to determine the market value of the big chunk of land which is acquired. He further submitted that the sale deeds Ex.P3 and P5 are subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 and therefore, could not be relied upon. He further submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded sufficient compensation and therefore, there was no scope of enhancement.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the owners have submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in imposing a cut of 40% on the average price. While highlighting the location of the land, learned counsel contended that the market value, assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, is on the lower side. They further contended that since the land of village Nizampur Khurd is sandwiched between the two roads, therefore, restricting the assessment of market value at 42,00,000/- per acre with ₹ respect to the land upto the depth of 5 acres on KharkhodaDelhi Road is wrong and therefore, this Court should order a uniform market value for the entire land.
After having given considerable thought to the respective
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court now proceeds to examine the case.
There cannot be any dispute about the first argument of learned counsel for the HSIIDC. The judgment relied upon by the Additional District Judge in Jasmer Singh (supra) has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Further, on plain reading of Section 25 of the 1894 Act, it is apparent that the Court is not prohibited to consider the sale deeds depicting lower market value than assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The only restriction is that the Court will not assess the market value lower than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Therefore, the sale deeds depicting the rate lesser than the award of the Collector cannot be kept out of consideration.
As noticed above, the location of the land is not in dispute. Now, let us examine the sale deeds produced by the owners one by one. The first sale deed is with respect to the land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Sohati. On a bare look at the two layout plans produced on record, one by the owners and the second by the HSIIDC, it is clear that the aforesaid village abuts the boundary of village Nizampur. The location of the land under sale deed Ex.P1 is not far away from the acquired land. This sale deed was executed before the notification was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The land was sold at the rate of 70,00,000/- per acre. The ₹
HSIIDC has not produced any evidence to prove that the sale transaction was jacked up or is not genuine.
The sale deed Ex.P4 is with respect to the land measuring 3 acres 4 kanals and 3 marlas, situated in village Jattola. The aforesaid village is at a distance of 3 kms. from village Nizampur. The land was sold at the rate of ₹50,03,200/-. The aforesaid land is situated away from Bahadurgarh to Biswamil road. No doubt, the land of village Jattola has not been included in the acquisition, however, the aforesaid piece of land is not very far from the acquired land. Along with the village boundary of Nizampur, there is another village Saidpur. The land of Saidpur is also under acquisition by way of the same notification. Further, there is Delhi to Kharkhoda road and the land represented by sale deed Ex.P6 is located across that road. The piece of land is sufficiently big and is not located on the road.
Therefore, the aforesaid sale deed can also be taken into consideration for assessing the market value of the land. No doubt, the sale deed Ex.P2, Ex.PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/D are of a smaller area. However, the sale deed Ex.P2 is more than three years before the notification was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, whereas the sale deed Ex.PW.3/B is with respect to the sale deed one year before the date of issuing notification under Section 4. Still further, the sale deed Ex.PW.3/D is again executed immediately before the notification is issued under Section 4.
of the plots of smaller size can be relied upon only after applying appropriate cut. The learned Additional District Judge has imposed a cut of 40%.
The average of the sale deeds Ex.P2, Ex.PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/D/P8 comes to ₹ 67,65,362/-. If 40% is deducted on account of the sale deeds of smaller pieces of land, the amount would come to ₹ 40,59,000/- approximately. On the other hand, if we take the average of the sale deed Ex.P1, Ex.P4, Ex.R2, Ex.R3, Ex.R4, Ex.R5 and Ex.R6, the average comes to ₹ 35,00,000/-. Once again, if the average of ₹ 40,59,000/- and ₹ 35,00,000/- is taken, the amount comes around 37,80,000/-. ₹ The learned Additional District Judge has assessed the market value at 42,00,000/- per acre for ₹ the land upto the depth of 5 acres abutting the main road and 37,00,000/- for the land ₹ situated beyond the depth of 5 acres from Delhi-Kharkhoda road.
The sale deed represented by Ex.R2, Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 are with respect to pieces of the land which are of an undivided share in khewat No. 120. Obviously, a seller of undivided share in the joint khewat will not get the market price. Still further, the land represented by these sale deeds is at some distance from the acquired land.
It is significant to note that the Corporation has annexed the layout plan (Annexure R1), however, the location of the land sold vide sale deeds Ex.R5, Ex.R6, Ex.R7, Ex.R8, Ex.R9,
Ex.R10, Ex.R11 and Ex.R12 have not been depicted. Hence, the Court is not in a position to appreciate that location. Further, from the layout plan, produced by the owners, Ex.P13, it is apparent that adjoining to the land acquired, there is an industrial area in village Firozepur Bangar. The area of Mungeshpur in the State of Delhi is also abutting the land. Let us examine this case from another angle. If the average rate of land is taken after the sale consideration of the sale deeds Ex. Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.PW.3/B, Ex.PW.3/D/P8, Ex.R2, Ex.R3, Ex.R4, Ex.R5, Ex.R6, Ex.R8, Ex.R9, Ex.R10, Ex.R11 and Ex.R12, the amount comes to ₹38,70,000/-. However, it has to be kept in mind that three sale deeds Ex.P2, Ex.PW.3/B and Ex.PW.3/D/P8 produced by the owners are of a smaller area and therefore, some sort of cut has to be imposed.
Hence, the market value determined by the learned Additional District Judge is neither excessive nor insufficient. Now let us examine the argument of learned counsel for the owners. The first argument is against the belting. It will be noted here that the two roads as projected are at quite a distance. No doubt, at village Saidpur, these roads cross each other, however, the area in between the aforesaid roads is quite large. It is common knowledge that the land abutting the main road or highway fetches more price. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the opinion of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the learned Additional District Judge.
The next argument of learned counsel for the owners is with reference to the location. The Court has already noticed that the location of the land is in close proximity with DelhiKharkhoda road, Western Peripheral Road and BahadurgarBiswamil road and hence, has a good potential. The HSIIDC has also acquired the land keeping in view its location. There are six industries already working in the area. Therefore, the land has the potential to be used for industrial purpose. Further, it is located in the National Capital Region near to the State of Delhi.
As regards the last argument of learned counsel for the appellant, it will be noted that 40% cut imposed by the learned Additional District Judge on the sale deeds of smaller area needs no interference because the learned Additional District Judge has imposed the cut of 40% on account of the land being acquired would be used for common facilities. This Court has made calculation from different angles and finds that no interference is required to be made with the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence, all the appeals filed by the HSIIDC as well as the owners are dismissed.
4. EVIDENCE 4.1 Before the Reference Court, the land owners and the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the HSIIDC") have produced various sale deeds which have been compiled in the following consolidated tables. The sale
deeds produced by the land owners are provided in Table "A", whereas the sale deeds produced by the HSIIDC are given in "Table "B" and the respective tables are extracted as under:- TABLE "A"
S.No.
Date Area Value ( ₹ ) Per Acre ( ₹ ) Village Remarks 01.
13.02.2007 7 M 2,00,000 45,91,428 Nizampur Khurd Residential 02.
17.10.2008 2K-12m 19,50,000 48,00,000 Ferozepur Bangar Nehri 03.
05.02.2009 2K-12M 4,00,000 12,30,769 Saidpur Nehri 04.
26.10.2009 4K-16M 42,00,000 70,00,000 Sohati Nehri 05.
30.01.2003 28K-3M 1,76,05,000 50,03,197 Jatala Nehri 06.
25.03.2013 7K-11M 1,03,81,250 1,10,00,000 Pipli Nehri 07.
15.01.2014 1 Acre 1,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 Saidpur Nehri TABLE "B"
S.No.
Date Area Value ( ₹ ) Per Acre ( ₹ ) Village Remarks 01.
30.01.2009 7K-16M 18,52,000 19,00,000 Pehladpur Nehri 02.
20.04.2009 3K-8M 4,25,000 10,00,000 Saidpur -do03.
11.05.2009 7K-8M 20,35,000 22,00,000 Saidpur -do04.
21.05.2009 5K-6M 13,25,000 20,00,000 Saidpur -do05.
02.06.2009 10K-7M 20,70,000 16,00,000 Sohati -do06.
25.09.2009 22K-5M 58,53,608 21,04,668 Saidpur -do07.
07.10.2009 1 Acre 25,00,000 25,00,000 Gopalpur -do08.
20.11.2009 2K-18M 7,25,000 20,00,000 Pehladpur -do09.
19.01.2010 11K-4M 28,00,000 20,00,000 Pehladpur -do10.
24.02.2010 1 Acre 20,00,000 20,00,000 Saidpur -do11.
24.02.2010 4 K 10,00,000 20,00,000 Sohati -do12.
03.03.2010 26K-5M 65,62,500 41,17,647 Sohati -do13.
04.06.2010 19K-18M 57,21,250 1,63,46,428 Pehladpur -do4.2 As already observed, these villages are not only located at the border of the National Capital Territory of Delhi but are also a part of the National Capital Region.
4.3 In the reference applications arising from the village Saidpur, Jagdish Chander Gupta and Kiran Aggarwal have been examined whereas in
the reference applications arising from Pehladpur, Virender Singh has stepped into the witness box and deposed. With respect to the reference applications of the village Gopalpur, Balraj, Surinder Kumar, Anant Kumar, Architect Madan Sangwan and one Pooja, Registry Clerk, have been examined. On behalf of the HSIIDC, Jasbir Singh, Manager, Industrial Model Township, Kharkhoda, has appeared and deposed in all the cases. 4.4 It is noted here that the land owners have also produced the proceedings of the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Divisional Commissioner for issuing the guidelines to the LAC for assessing the market value. On 03.08.2012, the Committee, after analyzing the available material, issued the guidelines. Since in the present case, the crucial date for determining the market value is 01.04.
2010, therefore, the aforesaid proceedings are not relevant being subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The land owners have also produced a policy for rehabilitation and resettlement of the land owners-land acquisition oustees which also does not help the Court in determining the market value in the present case. The land owners have also produced the judgment passed by the Reference Court in the cases arising from village Nizampur Khurd which has already been upheld by this Court. 4.5 Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-books of the lead cases as well as the record which was requisitioned.
5.
ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES 5.1 On the one hand, the learned Senior counsel representing the
HSIIDC has contended that the land owners, in these appeals, have failed to produce the sale deeds which have been relied upon by this Court while deciding the appeals arising from the village Nizampur Khurd, therefore, the same market value cannot be assessed whereas on the other hand, the learned counsel representing the land owners have contended that as the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, the assessment made by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") and the amount assessed by the Reference Court, are common and identical in all the appeals, therefore, the land owners are entitled to the same market value for the acquired land. Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners has submitted that once the purpose of the acquisition is common and the entire chunk of land is in contiguity and also the various villages are contiguous to each other, then in the peculiar facts of the case, the same amount is required to be assessed.
5.2 It is noted here that Mr. Navneet Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the land owners, has drawn the attention of the Court to the application for leading additional evidence which was allowed and the land owners were permitted to produce a sale deed dated 26.06.2009 with respect to the sale of the land measuring 1 kanal and 2 marlas, situated in village Gopalpur which was executed for a consideration of 21,47,000/- per acre. ₹ The learned counsel submits that the average per acre price of the acquired land comes to 1,56,18,181/- according to the relevant sale deeds, which is ₹ higher than the determined amount.
5.3 Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, another learned counsel appearing for the land owners has further contended that the sale deeds of lesser amount
than the amount awarded by the LAC cannot be taken into consideration. 6.
DISCUSSION 6.1 This Court, while examining the sale exemplars produced in the appeals arising from the village Nizampur Khurd, has examined the matter from various angles. In the considered view of this Court, merely because the land owners have failed to produce all the sale deeds which were produced in the previously decided case that in itself cannot be used as a ground in order to deprive the landowners of the appropriate market value, particularly when the landowners are similarly placed in all other aspects. It has clearly been shown in evidence that the purpose of acquisition is the same. The notification under Section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act is common. The LAC has assessed the market value of the acquired land at the same rate.
The Reference Court has also determined the market value of the acquired land situated in different villages at par. It is further observed that in all these cases, most of the sale deeds produced to prove the market value are common with that of the cases arising from the village Nizampur Khurd. Therefore, in all respects, parity has been maintained amongst the owners whose land, located in the various villages, has been acquired under the same notification. It has also come in evidence that the piece of land of the entire acquisition is in a rectangular shape and the chunk of the land is located in different villages which are contiguous to each other. There is, thus, continuity of land in the entire chunk.
There is no evidence on record that the land situated in village Gopalpur or in other villages is in any way inferior in geographical location or in quality to that of the land in village Nizampur Khurd.
could not advance any meaningful argument while drawing the attention of the Court towards any material evidence to prove that the owners of these villages are entitled to a higher amount when compared to the amount awarded to the owners of village Nizampur Khurd. 6.2 As regards the additional evidence, the sale deed is subsequent to the date of the concerned notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act as in all these cases, the crucial date for assessment of the market value of the acquired land is 01.04.2010. Therefore, the said sale deed cannot be considered.
6.3 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the assessment made by the Reference Court is considered appropriate and therefore, finding no merit, all the appeals as well as the cross-appeals/cross-objections, if any, are hereby dismissed.
6.4 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge October 06, 2021 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No S. No.
Case Number Party Name 1.
RFA-1060-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S RAVINDER AND OTHERS 2.
RFA-1061-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. V/S AZAD SINGH AND OTHERS 3.
RFA-1063-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S PREM PARKASH AND OTHERS
S. No.
Case Number Party Name 4.
RFA-1064-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S SAT NARAIN AND OTHERS 5.
RFA-1065-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S SANDEEP AND OTHERS 6.
RFA-1066-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S ANAND AND OTHERS 7.
RFA-1067-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S VIKAS AND OTHERS 8.
RFA-1068-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S OM PARKASH AND OTHERS 9.
RFA-1069-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S MUKESH AND OTHERS 10.
RFA-1070-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S ZILE SINGH AND OTHERS 11.
RFA-1071-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S PREM PRAKASH AND OTHERS 12.
RFA-1072-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAJESH AND OTHERS 13.
RFA-1073-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. V/S RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS 14.
RFA-1075-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S OMPARKASH AND OTHERS 15.
RFA-1076-2020 HSIIDC V/S JITENDER AND OTHERS 16.
RFA-1077-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S JAI KISHAN AND OTHERS 17.
RFA-1078-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS 18.
RFA-1079-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS 19.
RFA-1080-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS 20.
RFA-1081-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S JAI SINGH AND OTHERS 21.
RFA-1082-2020 HSIIDC V/S LAKHI RAM AND OTHERS
S. No.
Case Number Party Name 22.
RFA-1083-2020 HSIIDC V/S RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS 23.
RFA-1084-2020 HSIIDC V/S KULDEEP AND OTHERS 24.
RFA-1085-2020 HSIIDC V/S BHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS 25.
RFA-1086-2020 HSIIDC V/S SMT. DHANPATI NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS 26.
RFA-1087-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAJENDER SINGH AND OTHERS 27.
RFA-1088-2020 HSIIDC V/S CHANDER AND OTHERS 28.
RFA-1089-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S KULDEEP AND OTHERS 29.
RFA-1090-2020 HSIIDC V/S SANDEEP AND OTHERS 30.
RFA-1091-2020 HSIIDC V/S BHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS 31.
RFA-1092-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAMESH CHANDER AND OTHERS 32.
RFA-1093-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAJ SINGH AND OTHERS 33.
RFA-1094-2020 HSIIDC V/S SARDAR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs AND OTHERS 34.
RFA-1095-2020 HSIIDC V/S BRAHMJEET AND OTHERS 35.
RFA-1096-2020 HSIIDC V/S KULDEEP AND OTHERS 36.
RFA-1097-2020 HSIIDC V/S ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS 37.
RFA-1098-2020 HSIIDC V/S AZAD SINGH AND OTHERS.
38.
RFA-1099-2020 HSIIDC V/S BANI SINGH AND OTHERS.
39.
RFA-1100-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S MEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS.
40.
RFA-1102-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS 41.
RFA-1104-2020 HSIIDC V/S JAGDEEP AND OTHERS.
42.
RFA-1105-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAJ SINGH AND OTHERS.
43.
RFA-1106-2020 HSIIDC V/S SHEKER AND OTHERS 44.
RFA-1107-2020 HSIIDC V/S SUMER SINGH AND OTHERS.
45.
RFA-1108-2020 HSIIDC V/S SMT. BIMLA AND OTHERS.
46.
RFA-1109-2020 HSIIDC V/S JATI SINGH @ JEET SINGH @ OTHERS.
47.
RFA-1110-2020 HSIIDC V/S CHAND RAM AND OTHERS.
48.
RFA-1111-2020 HSIIDC V/S KULDEEP AND OTHERS.
49.
RFA-1112-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S JAGBIR AND OTHERS.
50.
RFA-1113-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S SANJAY AND OTHERS 51.
RFA-1114-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAMESHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS.
52.
RFA-1140-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND
S. No.
Case Number Party Name INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S SATBIR SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS 53.
RFA-717-2020 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 54.
RFA-718-2020 JAI SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 55.
RFA-719-2020 CHAND RAM V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 56.
RFA-720-2020 SAT NARAIN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 57.
RFA-721-2020 SAT NARAIN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 58.
RFA-754-2020 VIJAY SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 59.
RFA-763-2020 RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 60.
RFA-766-2020 JATI SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 61.
RFA-767-2020 ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 62.
RFA-768-2020 RAJ SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 63.
RFA-771-2020 SHEKER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 64.
RFA-772-2020 JITENDER AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 65.
RFA-780-2020 JAI BHAGWAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 66.
RFA-884-2020 CHANDER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 67.
RFA-896-2020 AZAD SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 68.
RFA-925-2020 BANI SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 69.
RFA-946-2020 RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 70.
RFA-959-2020 JAGBIR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 71.
RFA-1103-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S JAI BHAGWAN AND OTHERS 72.
RFA-849-2020 SMT. KAMLA AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 73.
RFA-947-2020 OM PARKASH AND OTHERS V/S HARYANA GOVERNMENT THROUGH COLLECTOR 74.
RFA-963-2020 RAVINDER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA
S. No.
Case Number Party Name AND OTHERS 75.
RFA-1117-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. V/S SMT. KAMLA AND OTHERS 76.
RFA-1119-2020 HSIIDC V/S SHIV MANDIR GRAM VIKAS PRISHAD AND OTHERS 77.
RFA-1120-2020 HSIIDC V/S SANJAY AND OTHERS 78.
RFA-1127-2020 HSIIDC V/S OM PARKASH AND OTHERS 79.
RFA-1130-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAVINDER AND OTHERS 80.
RFA-1193-2021 SMT. DHANPATI DECEASED THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 81.
RFA-1243-2021 SMT. MAMTA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 82.
RFA-1322-2021 JAI PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 83.
RFA-1328-2021 UMED SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 84.
RFA-1329-2021 SANJAY AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 85.
RFA-1334-2021 BALRAJ SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 86.
RFA-1342-2021 SUMER SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 87.
RFA-1344-2021 BANSI LAL V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 88.
RFA-1347-2021 DEEPAK AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 89.
RFA-1348-2021 MAHA SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 90.
RFA-1349-2021 SMT. BIMLA AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 91.
RFA-1354-2021 ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 92.
RFA-1357-2021 RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 93.
RFA-1362-2021 MEHAR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 94.
RFA-1367-2021 RAM KISHAN AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 95.
RFA-1385-2021 JAGDEEP AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 96.
RFA-1390-2021 SARDAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 97.
RFA-1392-2021 JAI KISHAN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 98.
RFA-1396-2021 RAJENDER SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND
S. No.
Case Number Party Name OTHERS 99.
RFA-1398-2021 OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
100. RFA-1400-2021 LAIK RAM AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
101. RFA-1402-2021 ZILE SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
102. RFA-1428-2021 BALBIR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
103. RFA-958-2020 ADHISWAR JAIN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
104. RFA-960-2020 RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
105. RFA-961-2020 VINOD KUMAR JAIN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
106. RFA-962-2020 SONAL JAIN V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
107. RFA-1040-2020 HSIIDC V/S DEEPAK AND OTHERS
108. RFA-1041-2020 HSIIDC V/S MAHA SINGH AND OTHERS
109. RFA-1042-2020 HSIIDC V/S JAI PAL SINGH AND OTHERS
110. RFA-1043-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S VINOD KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
111. RFA-1044-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S ADHISWAR JAIN AND OTHERS
112. RFA-1045-2020 HSIIDC V/S BANSI LAL AND OTHERS
113. RFA-1046-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS
114. RFA-1047-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS
115. RFA-1048-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S UMED SINGH AND OTHERS
116. RFA-1049-2020 HSIIDC V/S BALBIR SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
117. RFA-1050-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S LAIK RAM AND OTHERS
118. RFA-1051-2020 HSIIDC V/S RAM KISHAN AND OTHERS
119. RFA-1052-2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED V/S SONAL JAIN AND OTHERS
120. RFA-2035-2021 VIKAS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
S. No.
Case Number Party Name
121. RFA-2036-2021 SANDEEP V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
122. RFA-2037-2021 KULDEEP AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
123. RFA-2038-2021 KULDEEP AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
124. RFA-2039-2021 PREM PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
125. RFA-2040-2021 MUKESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
126. RFA-2041-2021 BABITA DEVI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
127. RFA-2042-2021 AZAD SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
128. RFA-2043-2021 RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
129. RFA-2044-2021 RAJESH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
130. RFA-2045-2021 RAVINDER AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
131. RFA-2046-2021 OM PARKASH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
132. RFA-2047-2021 KULDEEP AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
133. RFA-2048-2021 OM PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
134. RFA-2049-2021 PREM PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
135. RFA-2050-2021 BHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
136. RFA-2051-2021 BHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
137. RFA-2052-2021 RAJ SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
138. RFA-2053-2021 SANDEEP @ SANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
139. RFA-2054-2021 SATBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
140. RFA-2055-2021 ANAND V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
141. RFA-2056-2021 SANDEEP @ SANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
142. RFA-2057-2021 BRAHMJEET @ BRAHMJEET SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
143. RFA-2058-2021 RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
144. RFA-2059-2021 VIKASH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS