Haryana State Ind. Dev. Corp. Ltd. v. Ajmer Singh And Another
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular First Appeal No. 3304 of 2005 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases Reserved On: 10.01.2025 Pronounced On: 27.01.2025 Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Ajmer Singh and Another ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present:
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the appellant (In RFA-3304-2005) and for the HSIIDC-respondent (In Other Connected Cases.
Mr. Abhay Chauhan and Mr. J.K.Chauhan, Advocates for the appellant(s) (In RFA-2396-2004, RFA-2397-2004. RFA-2482-2004, RFA-2691-2004, RFA-2692-2004, RFA-88-2005, RFA-89-2005, RFA-90-2005, RFA-2437-2005 and RFA-2535-2005).
Mr. M.K.Chauhan and Mr. Shoaib Khan, Advocates, for the respondent-landowners (In RFA-2281-2004, RFA-2282-2004, RFA-2283-2004, RFA-2284-2004, RFA-2285-2004, RFA-22862004, RFA-2287-2004, RFA-2288-2004, RFA-2289-2004, RFA-2290-2004, RFA-2343-2004, RFA-2397-2004, RFA-24602004, RFA-2478-2004, RFA-2924-2005 and RFA-2689-2004). Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Introduction and Background 1.1 While praying for the modification of the market value of the acquired land assessed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the
RC'), the landowners as well as the State for Haryana have filed this batch of 30 appeals, (the details whereof have been given at the foot of judgment). 1.2 The notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") and the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") as well as the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC") are common. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that this batch of appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, all the reference petitions were consolidated and decided together by the RC.
1.3 The relevant particulars of the acquisition for the purpose of deciding this batch of appeals, in brief, are as under:- S.No.
Date Particulars Details 19.06.1992 Preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued for developing Industrial Estate located in the Revenue Estate of Village Alipur, Tehsil Panchkula, District Ambala.
-- Area of land - 103.17 acres.
Purpose-Development of Industrial Estate.
17.06.1993 Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published with regard to the land measuring 103.17 acres Award was announced only for 102.99 acres of land, which was the actual acquired land and 0.18 acres of land was left out, it being wrongly calculated.
08.04.1994 Award No. I was announced while offering to pay at the rate of ₹1,60,000/- per acre for Chahi land, ₹1,20,000/- per acre for Barani land and ₹80,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land as market value of the acquired land to the landowners alongwith all
S.No.
Date Particulars Details statutory benefits.
30.07.2004 The RC assessed the market value at the rate of ₹2,40,000/- per acre for chahi land, ₹1,80,000/- per acre for barani land and ₹1,20,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land alongwith all statutory benefits payable under the 1894 Act.
-- Brief facts of the Case 2.1 Dissatisfied with the amount offered for the involuntary acquisition of the land by the LAC, on the applications filed by the landowners, the cases were referred to the RC. The landowners claimed that the acquired land abuts the State Highway connecting traffic of the States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and the adjoining abadi of village, residential, commercial and industrial establishments.
2.2 On the other hand, the State of Haryana, while filing the written statement has claimed that the LAC has offered to pay a reasonable, adequate and appropriate market value of the acquired land. Evidence Produced by the Respective Parties 3.1 In the oral evidence, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:- Name of the Witness Particulars of the Witness PW.1 Sardul Singh Petitioner PW.2 Ajaib Singh Petitioner PW.3 Ajay Kumar Registry Clerk, Office of Sub Registrar, Panchkula PW.4 Kashmir Singh Assistant Manager, HSIDC 5.
PW.5 Suresh Pal Landowner of the land adjacent to the acquired land
6.
PW.6 Labh Singh Petitioner 7.
PW.7 Mirya Deen Rent Controller 8.
PW.8 Khalil Ahmad Estate Officer, Punjab Wakf Boad, Ambala.
9.
PW.9 Bata Khan Resident of village Billa 10.
PW.10 Khalil son of Kalu Resident of village Billa 11.
PW.11 Ram Niwas Draftsman 3.2 In the documentary evidence, the landowners produced the following documents, apart from the sale deeds, a tabulated compilation whereof is in Para 4.5 of the judgment:- Exhibit Number Description of the document Ex.P1 Pass Book Ex.P2 Rent Receipts Ex.P3 Rent Receipts Ex.P4 Rent Receipts 5.
Ex.P5 Rent Receipts 6.
Ex.P6 Rent Receipts 7.
Ex.P7 Copy of Khasra Girdwari 8.
Ex.P8 Copy of sale deed dated 28.05.1993 9.
Ex.P9 Copy of sale deed dated 26.04.1993 10.
Ex.P10 Copy of sale deed dated 01.06.1993 11.
Ex.P11 Copy of sale deed dated 31.05.1993 12.
Ex.P12 Copy of sale deed dated 10.05.1993 13.
Ex.P13 Copy of sale deed dated 08.04.1992 14.
Ex.P14 Copy of sale deed dated 29.08.1991 15.
Ex.P15 Copy of sale deed dated 24.03.1992 16.
Ex.P16 Copy of sale deed dated 28.11.1990 17.
Ex.P17 Site Plan 18.
Ex.P18 Copy of Jamabandi 19.
Ex.P19 Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 20.
Ex.P20-22 Kabuliat Nama 21.
Ex.P25 Letter dated 03.01.1997 of PWB 22.
Ex.P26 Letter dated 11.03.1997 of PWB 23.
Ex.P27 Letter dated 22.04.1997 of PWB 24.
Ex.P28 Letter dated 28.11.1996 of PWB 25.
Ex.P29 Letter dated 09.04.1996 of PWB 26.
Ex.P30 Copy of Gazette Notification dated 01.01.1990 27.
Ex.P31 Order dated 04.08.1994
Exhibit Number Description of the document 28.
Ex.P32 Copy of sale deed dated 30.11.1993 29.
Ex.P33 Site Plan 30.
Ex.P34 Certified copy of award dated 12.12.1996 in LA cases 53 of 1996 3.3 On the other hand, the HSIIDC examined RW.1 Aneeraj Sharma, Accountant, L.A. Office, Panchkula State of Haryana, in the oral evidence, has examined RW.2 Sh.Satish Kumar Taneja. 3.4 In the documentary evidence, the HSIIDC has produced the following documentary evience:- Exhibit Number Description of the document Ex.R1 Copy of sale deed dated 19.10.1993 Ex.R2 Copy of sale deed dated 13.09.1994 Analysis of the Reasons Recorded by the RC 4.1 From the pleadings of the parties, the RC culled out the following issues for adjudication:- "1) What was the market value of the suit land at the time of acquisition? OPP 2) To how much amount, the petitioners are entitled as compensation? OPP 3) Relief."
4.2 The Reference Court has discarded the sale deeds Ex.P34 (with respect to parcel of land located in village Ramgarh), Ex.P16 (with respect to parcel of land located in village Barwala), Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.P32 (with respect to parcel of land located in village Billa). Subsequently, the market value of the acquired land was assessed while calculating the average of as many as six sale deeds Ex.P12, Ex.P13,
Ex.P14, Ex.P15, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 @ ₹2,48,000/- per acre. 5.
Discussion and Analysis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties.
5.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book. Learned senior counsel representing the landowners has filed the written submission apart from the oral submissions.
5.2 At this stage, it will be appropriate to compile a list of sale deeds relied upon by the respective parties.
Sr.
No.
Exhibit No.
Dated Area Amount of Sale Consideation (In ₹) Name of Village Rate Per acre (In ₹) P13 08.04.1992 4K-5M 1,95,000 Alipur 3,67,059 P14 29.08.1991 5K-11M 1,80,125 Alipur 2,59,640 P15 24.03.1992 8K 1,95,000 Alipur 1,95,000 P16 28.11.1990 4K 3,00,000 Barwala 6,00,000 5.
P12 10.05.1993 1K-1M 45,000 Alipur 3,42,857 6.
P8 28.05.1993 0-8M 60,000 Billa 12,00,000 7.
P9 26.04.1993 2K-19M 3,10,000 Billa 8,40,678 8.
P10 01.06.1993 1K-5M 1,90,000 Billa 12,16,000 9.
P11 31.05.1993 1K-5M 1,90,000 Billa 12,16,000 10.
P32 30.11.1993 6M 45,000 Billa 12,16,000 11.
R1 19.10.1993 4K-13M 70,000 Alipur 1,20,480 12.
R2 15.09.1994 7K-12M 1,50,000 Alipur 1,57,920 5.3 On perusal of the lower Court's record, it can be noticed that the land owners produced a copy of layout plan of the area showing the location of the land while identifying the location of the land represented by the various sale deeds. Though this sketch is not on a scale but distance between the acquired land and the parcels of land represented by the various sale deeds particularly the sale instances Ex.P13, Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 have
been specified as 60 meters. The acquired land is located in between the State Highway and the residential portion of village Alipur which is located on a road which goes to Sabilpur. Thus, the acquired land was abutting two roads; one leading to Sabilpur and abadi of Alipur, whereas the second on the State Highway. Though village Barwala is at some distance, however, the development in the area is evident. It has also been shown that there is a ITBP Training Centre in the area.
5.4 The sale instances Ex.P13, Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 are at a distance of 60 meters. When the Draftsman who prepared the sketch appeared in evidence, this fact was not disputed. The State of Haryana has not led any evidence to prove that the distance is not 60 meters but more. The sale instance Ex.P13 was executed 2 months and 11 days before the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Thus, this is the appropriate sale instance which can be relied upon. The sale instance Ex.P11 is approximately 10 months before the date of notification, whereas Ex.P15 is just one month before the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary proving that the sale instance is either not reflecting the correct market value or the location or the value of the land sold is different, the Court is expected to rely upon the sale instance reflecting the highest price because the property is being taken away due to involuntary acquisition. Hence, the sale instance Ex.P13 is considered appropriate. The argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners that the Court should rely upon the sale instance Ex.
Barwala.
5.5 It would be noted here that the acquisition is for developing the Industrial Estate at Barwala. Hence, Barwala is a major village in the area. However, that would not be sufficient to rely upon the sale deed of village Barwala. It is evident that there were a lot of residential and commercial activities in the area apart from the utilization of the land for agriculture purpose.
5.6 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it can be concluded that the RC has erred in calculating the market value of the acquired land by taking average of the sale instances Ex. P12, Ex.P13 to Ex.P15, Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
6.
Decision 6.1 Consequently, the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed and those filed by the HSIIDC are dismissed. The landowners are held entitled to the market value of the acquired land @ ₹3,70,000/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits as per the amended 1894 Act, which now has been repealed.
6.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 27, 2025 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Case No.
Party's Name RFA-2278-2004 Avtar Singh Vs. State Of Haryana RFA-2281-2004 Surjit Kaur Vs. State Of Haryana
Case No.
Party's Name RFA-2282-2004 Gram Panchayat Vs. State Of Haryana RFA-2283-2004 Ajmer Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 5.
RFA-2284-2004 Maghar Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 6.
RFA-2285-2004 Harpal Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 7.
RFA-2286-2004 Ajit Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 8.
RFA-2287-2004 Harpal Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 9.
RFA-2288-2004 Labh Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 10.
RFA-2289-2004 Sant Ram Vs. State Of Haryana 11.
RFA-2290-2004 Ajaib Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 12.
RFA-2396-2004 Kishori Lal Vs. State Of Haryana 13.
RFA-2460-2004 Goran Devi Vs. State Of Haryana & Others 14.
RFA-2478-2004 Surta Singh And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 15.
RFA-2482-2004 Rati Ram Vs. State Of Haryana 16.
RFA-2689-2004 Dharam Pal And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 17.
RFA-2691-2004 Jarnail Singh Vs. State Of Haryana 18.
RFA-2692-2004 Sowaran Singh And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 19.
RFA-56-2005 Vivek Mittal Vs. State Of Haryana 20.
RFA-88-2005 Buta Singh And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 21.
RFA-89-2005 Amar Singh And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 22.
RFA-90-2005 Ajaib Singh And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 23.
RFA-2437-2005 Krishan And Others Vs. State Of Haryana 24.
RFA-2924-2005 Balwinder Singh & Others Vs. State Of Haryana & Others 25.
RFA-3303-2005 H S I D C Ltd. Vs. Balwinder Singh And Others 26.
RFA-3037-2006 Haryana. State Industrial Dev. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Rattan Singh Etc.
27.
RFA-3501-2006 Ram Kumar And Others Vs. State Of Haryana.
28.
RFA-3502-2006 Ram Kumar And Others Vs. State Of Haryana.
29.
RFA-3302-2005 Haryana State Ind. Dev. Corp. Ltd. Vs. Jarnail Singh And Another (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge January 27, 2025 "DK"