State Of Haryana And Others v. Ram Kumar And ANR
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 04.03.2022 State of Haryana and Others ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ram Kumar and Another ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present:
Mr. Arun Beniwal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Abhinash Jain, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satyendra Chauhan, Advocate.
Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Uday Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate.
Ms. Kannupriya, Advocate.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate.
Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate.
Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate.
Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate.
Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate.
Mr. Himanshu Joshi, Advocate.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the landowners.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1 This batch of 324 regular first appeals, details whereof are on the foot of the judgment, has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") assailing
the correctness of the award passed by the Reference Court on 29.01.2020. The relevant information concerning this bunch of appeals has been compiled in the tabulated form, which is as under:- Sr.
No.
Title Details
(1) Date of Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
29.08.2005
(2) Date of Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
29.08.2006
(3) Purpose of Acquisition.
Development of the residential and commercial Sector 3, 5 & 6 Part-II
(4) Location, area and nature of the acquired land Hansi - 229.13 Acres Dhana - 20.77 Acres Total - 249.90 Acres
(5) Number and Date of the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector.
Award No.1 and 2 dated 03.08.2007
(6) Amount assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
The LAC assessed the strip of the land, located upto the depth of 2 acres on Hisar-Delhi road @ 12,00,000/- per acre, whereas, the ₹ strip of land upto the depth of 2 acres, located on Jind byepass road, has been assessed at @ 10,00,000/- ₹ per acre. The remaining acquired land, which neither falls upto the depth of 2 acres, either from the Hisar-Delhi raod or the Jind byepass road, has been assessed @ 8,00,000/- per acre.
₹
(7) Date of the judgment of the Reference Court.
31.05.2014
(8) Amount determined by the Reference Court On 31.05.2014, the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "the RC") assessed the market value @ 1,000/- per square yard, which is ₹ equivalent to 48,20,000/- per acre.
₹
(9) Date and decision of the High Court On 28.05.2016, the High Court reassessed the amount of market value @ 4,173/- per square yard. The ₹ High Court, while increasing the market value @ 4,173/- per square ₹ yard, re-assessed the market value
Sr.
No.
Title Details by granting 15% cumulative increase for a period of 10 years, while taking into consideration the amount assessed by the Court in Ashrafi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2013) 5 SCC 527 with respect to a previous acquisition in the area. The per acre market value works out to 2,01,97,320/-.
₹
(10) Date and decision of the Supreme Court On 16.05.2018, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court by observing that - i) The Sale deeds should be considered over award/ judgment.
ii) The sale deeds, which are produced are part of the acquired land.
iii) The earlier acquisition in Ashrafi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2013) 5 SCC 527, is of the year 1995 which is too for very small and commercial, should not be considered at least when the sale deeds are there.
(11) Date and re-decision of the High Court, after remand from the Supreme Court.
Vide judgment dated 28.08.2019, the High Court, in Zile Singh-II v. State of Haryana (Regular First Appeal No. 7324 of 2014), remitted the appeals back to the RC for fresh adjudication.
On 29.01.2020, the RC has relied upon Ex.P2 (the allotment letter dated 25.09.2007 for Administrative and Judicial Complex at a price of ₹3,200/- per square meter (inadvertently taken by the RC as ₹3,200/- per square yard) and applied a cut of 75% and thereafter,
(12) Date of re-decision of the RC and the amount re-assessed, after remand
Sr.
No.
Title Details assessed the amount @ 750 ₹ /- per square square yard i.e. 36,30,000 ₹ /- per acre.
1.2 Now, this batch of appeals has been filed by the landowners, with a prayer to enhance the market value of the acquired land, whereas, the State of Haryana has filed the appeals claiming that the judgment passed by the RC is erroneous.
1.3 The landowners claim that the acquired land is situated in a very busy business centre in the developing town of Hansi. It is claimed that hospitals, banks, grain market, schools, temples, the various colonies, namely Gandhi Colony and various commercial markets including Gandhi Market, Amar Market, Kath Mandi, Uttam Nagar, New Adda Market, Model Town Market, Devi Lal Market, Model Town, New Auto Market, Adarsh Nagar, New Subhash Nagar, Sector developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority are situated in and around the acquired land which were developed much before the issuance of date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
It is also claimed that some part of the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits of the town of Hansi and the entire land, which is in a compact parcel, has the potential to be developed in any type of urban layout comprising of residential and commercial places. The acquired land abuts Delhi-Hisar National Highway-9 and therefore, it has an immense potential to be used for any purpose. 1.
contemporaneous period.
2.
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 2.1 In order to prove their case, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:- Sr. No.
Name of the Witness Particulars of the witness 1.
PW1 Sant Lal Landowner 2.
PW2 Sushil Kumar Clerk from the office of HUDA, Hisar 3.
PW3 Gokal son of Laxman Singh Landowner 4.
PW4 Ved Pal Registration Clerk 5.
PW5 Surender Kumar Landowner 6.
PW6 R.K.Mehta Draftsman 7.
PW7 Arjun son of Shri Surja Ram Landowner 8.
PW8 Darshan Singh Landowner 9.
PW9 Pawnesh Kumar Clerk 10.
PW10 Sant Lal Landowner 11.
PW11 Sanjiv Kumar Landowner 12.
PW12 Sita Ram Patwari 13.
PW13 Rajesh Photographer 14.
PW14 Sadhu Ram Draftsman 15.
PW15 Telu Ram Garg Landowner 16.
PW16 Ramesh Chander Assistant of the Office of Improvement Trust, Hansi 17.
PW17 Sudhir Junior Telecom Officer of BSNL, Hansi 18.
PW18 Rajender Kumar Clerk of MC Hansi 19.
PW19 Mukesh Kumar Building Inspector 20.
PW20 Gautam Kumar Patwari 21.
PW21 Surjit Patwari 2.2 The landowners have also produced the documents apart from the sale deeds, which have been compiled in para 2.5 of the judgment. It is noted here that certain discrepancies were found in the tabulated information given in the judgment of the RC which have been corrected and the modified table is presented as under:-
Sr. No.
Exhibit No.
Description of the document 1.
Ex.P1 Site plan of Hansi 2.
Ex.P2 Copy of letter no.17228 dated 25.09.2007.
3.
Ex.P3 Statement of accounts.
4.
Ex.P4 Copy of allotment letter no.16762 dated 21.10.2008.
5.
Ex.PW5/A Copy of register of petition writer.
6.
Ex.P6 Copy of lease deed No. 3187 dated 18.12.1990 7.
Ex.P6 Copy of lease deed No. 1560 dated 15.11.1995 8.
Ex.PW6/A Site plan.
9.
Ex.PW8/A Application dated 21.03.2011 10.
Ex.PW9/A Site plan 11.
Ex.PW11/A Copy of award dated 09.06.1998 12.
Ex.PW11/B Copy of site plan.
13.
Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.PW12/24 Photographs, CD and cash memo.
14.
Ex.PW13/I Site plan 15.
Ex.PA and PB Special power of attorney.
16.
Ex.PC Partnership Deed 17.
Ex.PD Site plan 18.
Ex.PW25 to Ex.P29 Record of Improvement Trust regarding auction 19.
Ex.P30 and 31 Site plan 20.
Ex.P32 Copy of judgment dated 11.10.2006 21.
Ex.P36 Copy of judgment dated 13.12.2005 22.
Ex.P.38 Copy of site plan.
23.
Ex.PW20/1 Jamabandi 24.
Ex.PW19/1 Jamabandi 25.
Ex.PW19/2 Mutation no.10907 26.
Ex.PX Copy of order.
27.
Mark 9 Attested copy of licence fee.
28.
Mark PA Allotment Letter 2.3 On the other hand, the State has examined the following witnesses:- Sr. No.
Name of the Witness Particulars of the witness 1.
RW1 Sita Ram Patwari.
2.
RW2 Mukesh Kumar Ahalmad 3.
RW3 Surjit Patwari
2.4 The State has produced the documentary evidence apart from the sale deed, which have been compiled in para 2.5 of the judgment. It is noted here that certain discrepancies were found in the tabulated information given in the judgment of the RC which have been corrected and the modified table is as under:- Sr. No.
Exhibit No.
Description of the document 1.
Ex.R2 Award No.1 dated 03.08.2007 2.
Ex.R3 List of sale-deeds.
3.
Ex.R23 Site plan.
4.
Ex.R35 Site plan.
5.
Ex.R36 List of sale deeds.
6.
Ex.R37 Site plan.
7.
Ex.R38 List of sale deeds.
8.
Ex.R39 Authority letter.
9.
Ex.R40 Copy of notification dated 29.08.2005 10.
Ex.R41 Copy of notification dated 28.08.2006.
11.
Ex.R42 Copy of Jamabandi.
12.
Ex.R43 Copy of fixation of land rates.
13.
Ex.RW2/A Copy of reference.
2.5 Further, for the sake of brevity, a consolidated compilation of the sale deeds/sale exemplars with the relevant information, produced by the respective parties of villages, namely Hansi and Dhana Kalan, is tabulated as under:- Sr. No. Exhibit Nos.
in various files Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price (in ₹) Price Per Acre (in ₹) HANSI (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 1.
P5 18.12.1990 8 K -16 M 90,000 81,818 2.
PW4/A 28.08.2003 4 K 20,00,000 40,00,000 3.
PW6/B 21.09.2005 188.88 Sq. Yards 11,00,000 2,81,94,896 4.
PW6/C 01.03.2006 81 Sq. Mtr.
1,75,000 87,50,000 5.
PW6/D 28.03.2007 150.69 Sq. Yards 3,77,000 1,21,08,832 6.
PW6/E 08.07.1994 24 Sq. Yards 61,000 1,23,01,666 7.
PW6/F 07.11.1992 8 Sq. Yards 20,800 1,25,84,000 8.
PW6/G, P37 23.05.1992 2 M 54,000 43,20,000 9.
PW6/H 28.08.2003 4 K 20,00,000 40,00,000
Sr. No. Exhibit Nos.
in various files Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price (in ₹) Price Per Acre (in ₹) 10.
PW6/I 12.02.2008 2 A - 5 M 4,81,73,125 2,37,16,000 11.
P33 25.04.2006 200 Sq. yards 6,50,000 1,57,30,000 12.
P34 26.02.2010 210 Sq. Yards 25,20,000 5,80,80,000 13.
P35 08.07.1994 24 Sq. Yards 61,000 1,23,01,666 14.
P39 07.03.2005 144 Sq. Yards 5,10,000 1,71,41,666 15.
P40 30.06.2010 1A-3K-13M 1,82,88,400 1,25,58,557 16.
P41 30.06.2010 1A-3K-10M 1,80,83,208 1,25,79,622 17.
P42 22.07.2005 120 Sq. yards 3,90,000 1,57,30,000 18.
P43 22.07.2005 57 Sq. Yards 5,52,300 4,68,97,052 19.
P44 16.09.2005 188.88 Sq.Yards 13,90,000 3,56,18,382 20.
P45 11.10.2005 150 Sq. Yards 3,50,000 1,12,93,333 21.
P46 10.08.2005 138.3 Sq. yards 4,64,000 1,62,38,322 22.
P47 29.04.2005 280 Sq. yards 9,65,000 1,66,80,714 23.
P48 19.07.2005 126 Sq. Mtr.
6,90,000 2,21,68,674 24.
P49 28.03.2007 150.69 Sq. yards 3,77,000 1,21,08,832 25.
R8 18.12.2008 1 A -1K - 2M 11,37,500 10,00,000 26.
R10 14.02.2006 4 K - 13 M 1,57,000 2,70,107 27.
R11 15.02.2006 59K - 8M 20,25,000 2,72,727 28.
R12 16.02.2006 7K - 18M 2,68,000 2,71,392 29.
R13 14.06.2005 2K 1,00,000 4,00,000 30.
R14 30.07.2004 2K 81,000 3,24,000 31.
R15 30.12.2005 2K-11M 1,60,000 5,01,960 32.
R16 31.01.2006 4K-17M 3,05,000 5,03,092 33.
R17 13.07.2006 2A-5K-5M 13,29,000 5,00,329 34.
R18 06.09.2006 2K-4M 2,20,000 8,00,000 35.
R19 14.06.2005 2K 1,00,000 4,00,000 36.
R20 14.06.2005 2K - 8M 1,20,000 4,00,000 37.
R21 21.02.2005 2K -17M 2,85,000 8,00,000 38.
R22 15.09.2005 4K 2,50,000 5,00,000 39.
R24 24.03.2000 3K 71500 1,90,666 40.
R25 18.05.2000 1K - 5 1⁄2 M 40,000 2,50,980 41.
R26 05.04.2002 2K 55,000 2,20,000 42.
R27 04.10.2002 4K 1,60,000 3,20,000 43.
R28 29.06.2004 3K 1,20,000 3,20,000 44.
R29 27.01.2005 28K 14,00,000 4,00,000 45.
R30 08.04.2005 300 Sq. yards 75,000 12,10,000 46.
R31 26.04.2005 200 Sq. Yards 50,000 12,10,000 47.
R32 05.05.2005 200 Sq. Yards 50,000 12,10,000 48.
R33 30.05.2005 1K - 14M 85,000 4,00,000 49.
R34 14.06.2005 1K - 14M 87,500 4,11,764 50.
R35 22.07.2005 19K - 13M 12,30,000 5,00,763 DHANA KALAN (Sale Deeds Produced by the respective parties) 51.
R4 06.01.2006 3 K - 13 M 1,28,000 2,80,547
Sr. No. Exhibit Nos.
in various files Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Price (in ₹) Price Per Acre (in ₹) 52.
R5 06.01.2006 3 K - 7 M 1,17,500 2,80,597 53.
R6 24.12.2007 1 K 62,500 5,00,000 54.
R7 25.04.2008 3 K - 14 M 3,01,000 6,50,810 55.
R9 06.01.2006 1 A -7K- 19 M 5,60,000 2,80,877 2.6 In order to understand the information compiled in above-noted table, it is appropriate to explain the meanings of the words/phrases used, while referring to the unit of land, which are 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 2.7 During the consolidation of the land holdings in the villages/revenue estate under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1953, the total land of the village is divided into Rectangles which consists of 25 acres of land. Each Rectangle is assigned a numerical number starting from 1. As per the practice, which
is uniformly followed, Rectangle No.1 is assigned to North Eastern Corner of the village and the assigned number increase in a strip of land having depth, equivalent to 5 acres towards South Eastern boundary of the village, then the assigned numbers keep increasing from the South Eastern side of the village towards the North Eastern side, again, in a strip of land having depth of 5 acres abutting the previous strip of land towards the Western side of the previous strip of land. (In other words, the assigned Rectangle numbers increase in spiral manner similar to the numbers assigned to each box in the game of Snakes and Ladder.) 3.
ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE RESPECTIVE COUNSELS 3.1 Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, carefully perused the judgment passed by the RC as well as the record of the case produced by the parties, before the RC in the lead case. The learned counsel representing the respective parties have also filed the synopsis with brief notes of their submissions. Mr. Aashish Gupta, Advocate, represents the subsequent allottees of the plots, who had filed the civil appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment of the High Court passed on 28.05.2016 in the previous round. He has also filed, written synopsis. The learned senior counsel has also filed a rebuttal to the synopsis filed by the learned counsel representing the State of Haryana. 3.2 Mr. Shailender Jain, Senior Advocate, the lead counsel, has submitted that the Court should not rely upon the sale instances, produced by the State, which are relating to the period 12 months prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. While elaborating, he has
submitted that the intention of the legislature is apparent from perusal of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation, Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"). Next, he submitted that the sale instances, produced by the State, should be declared to be undervalued in order to save the payment of stamp duty. While drawing the attention of the Court to the sale instance (Ex.PW.4/A) dated 28.08.2003 with respect to the land measuring 4 kanals for an amount of 20,00,000/-, he contended that the aforesaid parcel ₹ of land is located on the Delhi-Hisar Road and therefore, the Court, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, should rely upon the same after granting escalation for a period of 2 years on the sale price of 40,00,000/- per acre.
He also relied upon the sale instances (Ex.P12, ₹ Ex.P6/C, Ex.P33 and Ex.PW.6/D) in support of his submissions. 3.3 Per contra, the learned State counsel, while drawing the attention of the Court to layout plan (Ex.R37) has submitted that the State has produced as many as 17 sale deeds of the acquired land. He has submitted that various parcels of reasonable size, which can be used for agricultural purpose from the acquired land have, consistently, been sold at a price ranging 4,00,000/- to 5,00,000/- per acre only. He has further ₹ ₹ submitted that the sale instances, produced by the landowners, should not be relied upon as these are either with respect to plots in the developed commercial market or developed residential colony or sector.
He further submitted that the market value of a large chunk of acquired land cannot be determined on the basis of such a small plot.
4.
DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT 4.1 Before this Court proceeds further, it is considered appropriate to first of all analyze the reasons, recorded by the RC in the impugned judgment. The first reason, assigned by the RC, is to the effect that the sale deeds, produced by the State, are undervalued in order to save payment on the stamp duty. Secondly, the RC has observed that the acquired land measuring 12.73 acres was allotted to the Department of Revenue, vide allotment letter dated 25.09.2007, @ 3,200/- per square meter ₹ (inadvertently recorded by by the RC as 3,200/- per square yard) and then, ₹ a deduction of 75% has been applied to arrive at a figure of 800/- per ₹ square yard. Thereafter, the RC, while referring to the sale deeds (Ex.PW.6/B to Ex.PW6/I and Ex.P33 to Ex.P35, Ex.P37, Ex.P39 to Ex.P49) and the sale deeds (Ex.R4 to Ex.
R22 and Ex.R24 to Ex.R35), assessed the market value of the acquired land @ 750/- per square yard. In fact, the ₹ entire discussion of the RC on this aspect is in para 21, which is extracted as under:- "21. Ex.P-2 is the letter dated 25.09.2007, which proves that the office of HUDA sold 12.73 acres of land of Sector 5 Hansi to Revenue Department for construction of Administrative and Judicial Complex at the rate of Rs.3200/- per square yard. The land 12.73 acres is admittedly a part of the acquired land. The contention of the petitioners is that the rate of acquired land must be atleast assessed at the rate of Rs.3200/- per acre as the part of the acquired land has been transferred by the department of HUDA at this rate in year 2007. This contention of the learned advocate for petitioners has also mot much water to hold.
Department. Further, the land transferred by HUDA was developed by the department before its transfer which increased its value substantially. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the rate of acquired land at the rate of Rs.3200/- because the acquired land was not developed by HUDA at the time of its acquisition but the same was developed at the time of its transfer to the Revenue Department. But, the letter, Ex.P-2, is certainly important to assess the market value of the acquired land in the year 2005. Since, the portion of the acquired land was transferred by HUDA to the revenue department at the rate of Rs.3200/- per square yard, it is evident that the market value of the land must not be less than 25% of Rs.3200/- per square yard before development, which comes to Rs.800/- per square yard. Since the land measuring 12.
73 acres was transferred in year 2007, the market rate of the acquired land had to be somewhat below the rate of Rs.800/- per square yard in year 2005. Therefore, keeping in view the letter, Ex.P-2, the sale deeds, Ex.PW6/B to Ex.PW6/I and Ex.P33 to Ex.P-35, Ex.P-37 and Ex.P-39 to Ex.P-49 relied upon by the petitioners and sale deeds Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-22 and Ex.R-24 to Ex.R-35, the market value of the acquired land is fixed as Rs.750/- per square yard on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, that is, 29.08.2005".
4.2 It would be noted here that the learned counsel representing the parties have failed to draw the attention of the Court to any evidence to prove that the sale deeds, produced by the State of Haryana, were undervalued in order to save the stamp duty. The Court, on the basis of certain observations made in the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. Pransukh and Another 2010 (11) SCC 175 has returned a finding that the transactions, involving the transfer of the immovable properties, are usually undervalued with a view to avoid
payment of the requisite stamp duty and the registration charges. In the considered view of the Court, such observations are not borne out from the record. It has come in evidence that the claimants/appellants are the same landowners, who have purchased the properties through the various sale instances, produced by them. Ex.R14 is a sale instance of 2 kanals of land, purchased on 30.07.2004 by Zille Singh. He has filed the application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, bearing LAC No. 257/08.09.2008. Similarly, Ex.R15 is a sale instance of 2 kanals and 11 marlas of land, purchased vide sale deed dated 30.12.2005 by Suresh Chander son of Zille Singh, who has filed the application (LAC No. 189/09.12.2012). Similarly, Ex.R17 is a sale instance dated 30.07.2006, with respect to the land measuring 21 kanals and 5 marlas, purchased by Smt.
Maya wife of Bharat Singh, who has filed the application (LAC No. 425/25.11.2008). Ex.R18 is a sale instance dated 06.09.2006 with respect to the land measuring 2 kanals and 4 marlas, purchased by Vijay Kumar, who is the applicant in LAC No.129/20.09.2010. Similar is the position with regard to the sale deeds (Ex.R21, Ex.R22, Ex.R24, Ex.R25, Ex.R26, Ex.R28, Ex.R29, Ex.R30, Ex.R31, Ex.R32 and Ex.R34). It is significant to note that Shashi kant has purchased a large chunk of land vide sale deeds (Ex.R29, Ex.R33 and Ex.R35). These landowners have not led any evidence to prove that the sale deeds were undervalued with a view to save the requisite stamp duty and the registration charges. In such circumstances, the observations made by the RC are erroneous.
4.3 The RC has also erred in relying upon the allotment letter dated 25.09.2007 with respect to the developed land measuring 12.73 acres. The
RC, after noticing that it is with respect to the developed area and the allotment is post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, has relied upon the same by applying 75% deduction. It would be noted here that the RC has overlooked Section 24(5) of the 1894 Act, which specifically provides that any increase in the value of the acquired land likely to accrue from the use to which it would be put after acquisition is required to be ignored in determining the compensation. Section 24 of the 1894 Act is extracted as under:- "24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation.- But the Court shall not take into consideration - first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired;
thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land a cquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put;
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put;
seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub -section (1)]; or eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to
public policy".
4.4 It is, thus, evident that the RC has overlooked the statutory provision.
4.5 Furthermore, it is also evident from para 21, which has been reproduced above, that the RC, without disclosing the reasons as to how it arrived at a market value of 750/- per square yard, has referred to the ₹ various sale instances without analyzing as to whether these sale instances are comparable or not. Hence, it becomes important for the Appellate Court to examine all the sale instances.
4.6 Ex.R2 is an allotment letter of the land measuring 12.73 acres, allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority to the Department of Revenue, Haryana, for developing the Judicial and Administrative Complex. This sale instance should not be considered in view of Clause (5) of Section 24 of the 1894 Act particularly when the comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period with respect to the acquired land itself, have been produced. This allotment is also more than 2 years subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 4.7 The sale instances Ex.PW.6/B to Ex.PW.6/I are with respect to very small plots of land, which are ordinarily used either for shops or residential purposes. The sale instance (Ex.PW.4/A = Ex.PW.6/H) is with respect to the land measuring 4 kanals, with respect to the land situated in rectangle No. 481, 491 and 496, which is at a distance of 4 Kms. for the acquired land. On a careful examination of the layout plan (Ex.R37), produced by the State, it is evident that the acquired land is not from
rectangle No. 481, 491 and 496. The undivided share of the joint land had been sold. From a bare look at the layout plan (Ex.P13/A), it is evident that the aforesaid parcel of the land is located at a distance of 4 Kms. from the acquired land, which has been confirmed by the learned counsel representing the State of Haryana. Although, the aforesaid parcel of the land is also located on the Delhi-Hisar road, however, keeping in view the distance as also the aforesaid sale instance is not considered appropriate. It is relevant to note here that a parcel of land sold through sale instance dated 22.07.2005 (Ex.R35), with respect to the land measuring 19 kanals and 13 marlas, is also located on the Delhi-Hisar road. It forms part of the acquired land. Similar is the position with regard to the sale instances Ex.R30, Ex.R31, Ex.R32 & Ex.R34.
In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the sale instance (Ex.PW.4/A). Furthermore, the sale instances Ex.P33 to Ex.P39 are with respect to very small plots of land which can ordinarily be used for commercial or residential purpose. The sale instance (Ex.P37) & Ex.PW6/G is one and the same sale instance. No doubt, the sale instance Ex.P40 and Ex.P41 are with respect to medium sized parcels of the land measuring 11 kanals and 13 marlas and 11 kanals and 10 marlas, respectively. But both these sale instances are of 30.06.2010 which is four years after the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The sale instances Ex.P42 to Ex.P49 are again with respect to very small plots, which are ordinarily used only for residential or commercial purposes. The RC also referred to the sale instances Ex.R4 to Ex.
R12 and Ex.R24 to Ex.R35, but has failed to discuss the same.
4.8 On a careful examination of the layout plan Ex.R37, it is evident that the State of Haryana has produced as many as 17 sale deeds namely Ex.R14, Ex.R15, Ex.R17, Ex.R18, Ex.R21, Ex.R22 and Ex.R24 to Ex.R35 with respect to the various parcels of the land, which forms part of the acquired land. The cumulative total area sold through all these sale deeds come to 100 kanals and 121⁄2 marlas of the land.. It is also evident that the sale instance (Ex.R29) is with respect to the land measuring 31⁄2 acres which has been purchased by Shashi Kant, who is one of the claimant, @ 4,00,000/- per acre on 07.01.2005. The preliminary notification was ₹ issued on 29.08.2005 i.e. within a period of 7 months from the sale deed.
As per the assessment by the RC, Shashi kant has been held entitled to the market value of the acquired land @ 36,30,000/- per acre along with all the ₹ statutory benefits. Similar is the position with regard to the sale instance dated 22.07.2005 (Ex.R35) wherein the same Shashi Kant purchased the land measuring 19 kanals and 13 marlas, which is approximately 21⁄2 acres @ 5,00,763/- per acre. The notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act ₹ has been issued after a period of one month only. Similarly, the sale instance dated 13.07.2006 (Ex.R17) is 11 months post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. This sale instance is with respect to the land measuring 21 kanals and 5 marlas (more than 21⁄2 acre of land) which has been sold @ 5,00,329/- per acre.
Thus, it can be safely concluded that even ₹ after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, the prices of the land in the area did not increase exponentially. 4.
the market value of the acquired land by relying upon the preferred sale instances of the acquired land itself, which have been produced or on the basis of assumptions. These sale instances are between the private persons. The State of Haryana or Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the HUDA") is not party to the same. Hence there is no reason to discard these sale instances of the acquired land. 4.10 Now, let us analyze the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the landowners. The first argument of the learned senior counsel does not have any substance because the 2013 Act came to be enforced w.e.f. 01.01.2014. In the present case, the market value of the acquired land is being assessed as on 29.08.2005. The acquisition is under the 1894 Act.
The attention of the Court has not been drawn to any provision, which provides for applicability of the 2013 Act to the acquisitions made for assessment of the market value under the 1894 Act, except Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which is not applicable in the present case. Further, the argument of the learned senior counsel is fallacious. The Explanation (I) of Section 26 of the 2013 Act only provides that while determining the average sale price, the Court is required to take into consideration the sale deeds executed immediately, within the preceding three years from the year in which such acquisition of the land is notified to be made.
4.11 As regards the second argument of the learned senior counsel with regard to the usual practice of undervaluation of the sale deed, in order to save payment of the requisite stamp duty and the registration charges, this Court has carefully read the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
Pransukh's case (surpa). No doubt, the Supreme Court has observed that this is a normal practice. However, such an observation, with greatest respect, cannot be construed as the ratio decidendi of the judgment. In that case, the parties had led the evidence to prove the market value on the basis of a sale deed between the two corporate entities, where the sale consideration was paid through bank transactions. After noticing that there is a huge variation, the Court made such observations. In the present case, the State has produced in evidence as many as 17 different sale deeds with respect to various parcels of land which form part of the acquired land reflecting a consistent price. Hence, it is not considered appropriate to ignore all the sale deeds, produced by the State. 4.
12 The next argument of the learned senior counsel is with reference to the sale instance (Ex.P12 and Ex.P28) with respect to the developed plot measuring 192 square meters, sold by the Improvement Trust, vide sale deed dated 16.02.2006. This is with respect to the residential plot No.48, situated in Model Town Market, Hansi and hence, it is not considered appropriate to rely upon for assessing the market value of a large chunk of the undeveloped acquired land. Similarly, the sale instance dated 01.03.2006 (Ex.PW.6/C) is also post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act with respect to the plot measuring 96.876 square yards in a developed Sector 6, Part-II, HUDA Colony, Hansi. The sale instance (Ex.P33 dated 24.04.
2006) is another sale instance, which is claimed to be a part of the acquired land in the written submissions, filed by the learned counsel representing the landowners.
respect to the plot measuring 200 square yards from rectangle No. 508, khasra No. 5/2/2/2/1 and 9/2. From the careful perusal of the layout plan (Ex.P38), it is evident that this plot is not a part of the acquired land. In fact, it is located on the other side of the main road. Furthermore, ordinarily the area of a rectangle is 121000 square yards. The sale instance is with respect to an undivided share measuring 200 square yards. Hence, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the same. The aforesaid plot, purchased by Radhey Shyam son of Shyam Lal, is not only post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, but even Radhey Shyam has not appeared in evidence to prove that the plot in question has been acquired. Hence, the sale instance (Ex.
P33) is not considered appropriate to be relied upon to assess the market value of the undeveloped acquired land measuring 249.90 acres. 4.13 The last argument of the learned senior counsel representing the land landowners is with reference to the sale instance dated 20.03.2007 (Ex.PW.6/D and Ex.P49), which is not only post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, but also with respect to a plot measuring 150 square yards located in developed Sector 6, Part-II, HUDA Colony, Hansi. Hence, it is not considered appropriate to assess the market value of the undeveloped land.
4.14 The landowners have produced as many as seven layout plans, in support of their case. In Ex.P9/A, the various parcels of land sold through some of the sale deeds produced by the landowners have been depicted. It is evident that none of the sale deeds, as depicted in Ex.P9/A, is with respect to the acquired land. The landowners, apart from producing the various sale deeds, have also produced allotment letter issued by the Haryana Urban
Development Authority in the year 2008, while allotting 15 acres of land to the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board @ 2,246/-. No doubt, the ₹ plot measuring 15 acres is allotted out of the acquired land, but this is after a period of two years from the date of acquisition when the area has been developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Therefore, this allotment letter cannot be relied upon to assess the market value of the undeveloped land. Similarly, the landowners have also relied upon the auction proceedings of various plots held by the Hansi Improvement Trust with respect to the shops Ex.P25 to Ex.P29. These auction sales are with respect to shops and therefore, these cannot be relied upon. Apart from that, the landowners have also relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
5290 of 1993, which was decided on 11.10.2006. The High Court assessed the market value @ 150/- per square yard with ₹ respect to acquisition of the land started acquired vide notification under Section 34 of the Town Improvement Act on 24.03.1993. Hence, this assessment by the High Court is with respect to a very old acquisition. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon particularly in view of the comparable sale deeds of contemporaneous period with respect to the acquired land. The next award relied upon by the learned counsel representing the landowners is Ex.P36, passed by the RC on 13.12.2005 with respect to the acquisition of land initiated on 18.03.1992 by issuing notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The market value of the acquired land measuring 21.06 acres was assessed @ 700/- per square yard.
acquired land, itself, are available.
4.15 The learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ujjal Singh v. Union of India and Others 1979(2) ILR Delhi 129 with respect to the acquisition of the land in Karkardooma, Delhi. The Court, after noticing that the sale instances of the small plots have been produced, held that such sale instances cannot be relied upon because this may be a misleading guide. However, the sale instances of the small plots are not to be entirely disregarded, because they can afford some help in the task of assessing the market value.
Neither, the aforesaid judgment lays down that in all eventualities, the sale instances of the small plots, which are not comparable, must be relied upon nor it is held that while ignoring the comparable sale instances during contemporaneous period, the sale instances of small plots of the developed areas should given preference. The second judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is in Onkarnal (Dead) through LRs v. State of Haryana and Another 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 348. In the aforesaid case, the question was with regard to reliance on the price fetched in open auction sale. In that case, the land was sought to be acquired for setting up a housing colony in Hisar.
The Court has held that the auction sale two months prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act can be relied upon in the absence of other evidence. The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is in Balbir Singh and Another v. Haryana State Through Collector, Hisar and Others (Regular First Appeal No. 249 of 2000, decided on 16.11.2012). In this case also, the acquired land was located in Hisar. The case, the Court assessed the market value in the peculiar facts of that case.
4.16 The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is in Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Others (2011) 2 SCC 246. In the aforesaid case, the comparison was made between the auction sale and open market sale for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land and the Court held that where an open auction sale is also comparable sale transaction, the Court can rely upon the price disclosed, with caution. 4.17 The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is in Major General Kapil Mehra and Others v. Union of India and Another (2015) 5 SCC 262. The Delhi Development Authority acquired the land for development of Vasant Kunj Residential Scheme. The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued in the year 1983.
The Court held that the general rule is that the sale price of comparable sale deed with respect to the auction sale will not be relied upon to assess the market value of the acquired land. In the considered opinion of the Court, the aforesaid judgment also does not help the landowners. 4.18 The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is in Chiman Lal Hargovinddass v. Special Land Officer, Poona AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1652. While enlisting the factors to be taken into consideration, in assessing the market value, the Court held that even post notification sale instances can be taken into consideration in certain circumstances.
4.19 Further, the judgment relied upon by the RC is in Pransukh's case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court, in para 22, made an observation with regard to the usual practice of undervaluation of
the sale instances. The Court gave preference to the sale instance between the two corporate entities while making an observation that there is normal practice of undervaluing the sale consideration in order to save the payment of stamp duty and the registration charges. With highest respect, the aforesaid observations can be considered to be ratio decidendi. 4.20 In the end, the learned counsel representing the landowners rely upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Ashrafi's case (supra). The learned counsel has submitted that the Supreme Court assessed the market value @ 1,342/- per square yard with respect to a different ₹ acquisition of nearby land, which is located 300 yards from the acquired land.
It would be noted here that once the sale instance of the acquired land itself are available, it would not be appropriate to rely upon the assessment of the market value of the acquired land, made by the Court, which is based the conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence. In the facts of the case, the Supreme Court in Ashrafi's case (supra), while deciding a large batch of appeals arising from compulsory acquisition of the land in five different States, assessed the market value. In the considered opinion of the Court, with highest respect, the judgment passed in Ashrafi's case (supra) does not declare that the market value of the land in the revenue estate of Hansi is 1,342/- per square yard. This is an assessment, made by the Court on the ₹ basis of the evidence produced. Hence, this judgment does not advance the case of the appellant.
4.21 Further, the learned senior counsel representing the landowners has filed rebuttal submissions to the written submissions filed by the learned counsel representing the State as well as the allottee. Apart from reiterating
the arguments, which have already been addressed, the learned senior counsel relied upon Raghubans Narayan Singh v. The U.P. Government through Collector of Bijnor AIR 1967 Supreme Court 465, to contend that all potential possibilities of use of land, in all possible ways, is to be examined while assessing the market value. In this judgment, the Supreme Court, after examining the facts of the case, found that the High Court resorted to a method of evaluation on the basis of annual crop value which was not adequate. Hence, the judgment of the High Court was set aside while restoring to the assessment made by the RC. In that context, the Court observed that all the possible potentialities of use of the acquired land is required to be taken into consideration.
4.22 The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is in State of Kerala v. Mariamma Abraham and Another AIR 1969 Kerala
265. In this case, the acquisition was made under the Travancore-Cochin Land Acquisition Act, 1089 for the acquisition of 1.272 acre of double crop wet and 54.54 acres of dry land in Kottayam district.The Division Bench of the High Court decided the case on the peculiar facts pertaining to that case. 4.23 The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel representing the landowners is Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag and Others (2011) 2 SCC 246. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court, while considering the facts of that case held that open market sale is to be preferred in order to obviate the possibility of the auction sale transaction being higher due to the element of competition. As already noticed, in the present case, the aforesaid issue does not arise. 4.24 The last judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel
representing the landowners is a judgment from the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Land Acquisition Collector v. Sukhdev Singh AIR 1995 Himachal Pradesh 150. In the facts of the aforesaid case, after extensively discussing the law propounded in Chiman Lal Hargobind Dass's case (supra), dismissed the appeals. Thus, as already noticed, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel representing the landowners do not advance the case of the landowners.
4.25 It would be noted here that the Supreme Court, while deciding a batch of appeals in Manoj Kumar etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others (2018) 13 SCC 96, has expounded that outright reliance on a previous assessment made by the Court with respect to the acquisition of the land through different notifications, located nearby, is not appropriate and such judgment is only a piece of evidence which should be evaluated by the Court before relying upon the assessment made in the same. This issue is no longer res-integra. Recently, in Manoj Kumar's case (supra), the Supreme Court has held that while assessing the market value, the Court is required to evaluate the various factors which goes to impact such a determination depending upon the peculiar facts governing each case.
There cannot be any hard or fast rule for assessment of the market value. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. While denouncing the practice of the courts to place an outright reliance on the previous judgments, the Supreme Court has declared that the decision cannot be applied ipso facto to the facts of the subsequent cases while neglecting the other evidence. The Court has further warned of the ill effects of such an approach.
"11. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on Swaran Singh case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] , 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 case [Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 19044] 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 bona fide 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.
12.
We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding. The determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land 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. The 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. 13.
The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. As per situation of a village, nature of land, its value differ from distance to distance, even two to three kilometre distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages. 14.
The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence on a par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding. Such determination has to be outrightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed; on the ground
of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant."
4.26 In the considered view of this Court, the determination of the market value of the land on the basis of comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period is the most preferred and logical method to arrive at a fair and true market value. While deciding such cases, the Court is required to adopt a holistic approach. The Court is expected to assess a just and appropriate market value on the basis of the evidence produced. In such circumstances, comparable sale deeds offer a good solution to the problem. They are considered as the best evidence to prove a fact being in the nature of direct evidence and help the Court to assess the market value more accurately and realistically.
Once comparable sale deeds of the contemporaneous period are available to guide the court, it is not safe to rely upon a previous judicial assessment of the market value while ignoring the sale deeds which reflect the most accurate market value of the property on which a seller voluntarily offers to sell the property on receipt of the amount from a willing purchaser. Unless the correctness of the price, reflected in these sale deeds, is disputed on any ground duly proved, the court can safely rely upon the same for assessing the market value. If there are a large number of comparable sale deeds of the contemporaneous period, the Court can, with reasonable certainty, assess the market value while relying upon such sale instances.
5.
DECISION 5.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the landowners have failed to produce any convincing
evidence to prove that the price assessed by the LAC was erroneous. Consequently, the appeals, filed by the State of Haryana, are allowed, whereas the appeals, filed by the landowners, are dismissed. The assessment made by the LAC, in two different awards, is upheld. 5.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 04, 2022 "DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) 1.
RFA-1190-2021 RAMDASS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2.
RFA-1231-2021 SMT. MEENA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 3.
RFA-1993-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SUNITA AND ANOTHER 4.
RFA-1513-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS 5.
RFA-1146-2021 PARTAP SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 6.
RFA-1484-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RANBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 7.
RFA-1171-2021 SMT. CHANDER KALA AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 8.
RFA-1888-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RATTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 9.
RFA-2347-2021 CHAMELI AND OTHERS HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR 10.
RFA-1104-2021 BALWANT STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 11.
RFA-2447-2021 SMT. SAVITRI STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 12.
RFA-1157-2021 RAJMAL AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 13.
RFA-1183-2021 DR. TELU RAM STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 14.
RFA-1531-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJMAL AND OTHERS
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) 15.
RFA-1115-2021 SMT. SHARBATI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 16.
RFA-1182-2021 SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 17.
RFA-1456-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER YASH PAL AND ANOTHER 18.
RFA-1486-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM KISHAN AND ANOTHER 19.
RFA-1109-2021 PARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 20.
RFA-1839-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JASWANT RAI AND OTHERS 21.
RFA-1506-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT MURTI DEVI AND ANOTHER 22.
RFA-1117-2021 RAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 23.
RFA-1514-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VARINDER AND ANOTHER 24.
RFA-1942-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER 25.
RFA-1502-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUBE SINGH AND ANOTHER 26.
RFA-1167-2021 RAM CHANDER AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 27.
RFA-1173-2021 AMARJEET AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 28.
RFA-1980-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MAYA AND ANOTHER 29.
RFA-1535-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHIV KUMAR AND OTHERS 30.
RFA-1123-2021 ZILE SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 31.
RFA-1510-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ATAM PARKASH AND ANOTHER 32.
RFA-1500-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM NIWAS AND OTHERS 33.
RFA-1996-2021 STATE OF HARYANA KHUSHI RAM AND OTHERS 34.
RFA-1160-2021 HOSHIAR SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 35.
RFA-2380-2021 LILA DECEASED THROUGH LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 36.
RFA-1933-2021 STATE OF HARYANA RAM SARUP AND OTHERS 37.
RFA-1475-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER 38.
RFA-2001-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHIV KUMAR ALIAS SHEEL KUMAR AND ANOTHER 39.
RFA-2343-2021 TARA CHAND SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) LRS 40.
RFA-1527-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARTAP SINGH 41.
RFA-1986-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ZILE SINGH 42.
RFA-1232-2021 JOGENDER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 43.
RFA-2169-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT SURINDER ALIAS SIDHU AND ANOTHER 44.
RFA-2690-2021 PIRTHI SINGH DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 45.
RFA-2004-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. MEENA AND ANOTHER 46.
RFA-1508-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. RAJBALA 47.
RFA-1469-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT SANTOSH KUMARI AND OTHERS 48.
RFA-1116-2021 RAM KISHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 49.
RFA-2005-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. RAJNI GARG AND ANOTHER 50.
RFA-1958-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ZILE SINGH 51.
RFA-1964-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT RAJNI GARG AND ANOTHER 52.
RFA-1503-2021 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. CHANDRO DEVI AND OTHERS 53.
RFA-2099-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BANARSI DASS AND ANOTHER 54.
RFA-1457-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PREM LATA AND ANOTHER 55.
RFA-1458-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH CHANDER 56.
RFA-2096-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HAKAM SINGH AND OTHERS 57.
RFA-1164-2021 KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 58.
RFA-1479-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS 59.
RFA-1499-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KRISHAN AND ANOTHER 60.
RFA-1442-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM CHANDER AND ANOTHER 61.
RFA-1153-2021 RAM KISHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 62.
RFA-1166-2021 RAJNI GARG STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 63.
RFA-1155-2021 JAI KUMAR HUDA AND ANR 64.
RFA-1530-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) 65.
RFA-1110-2021 SURESH CHANDER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 66.
RFA-1920-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HOSHIAR SINGH AND OTHERS 67.
RFA-1454-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 68.
RFA-1103-2021 RATTAN SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 69.
RFA-1136-2021 RAM NIWAS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 70.
RFA-1133-2021 CHAMELI DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 71.
RFA-2008-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DINESH KUMAR 72.
RFA-1967-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PIRTHI SINGH THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS 73.
RFA-1496-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATYAVIR JAIN AND OTHERS 74.
RFA-1598-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BANWARI SUBCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. AND ANOTHER 75.
RFA-1968-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DARSHAN SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER 76.
RFA-1941-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PIRTHI AND OTHERS 77.
RFA-1974-2021 STATE OF HARYANA SMT. CHAMELI AND OTHERS 78.
RFA-2366-2021 BHAG CHAND STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 79.
RFA-1159-2021 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 80.
RFA-1805-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SINGH 81.
RFA-1928-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT SUMITRA DEVI AND ANOTHER 82.
RFA-1156-2021 RADHEY SHAM AND OTHERS HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER 83.
RFA-1461-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DR. TELU RAM AND ANOTHER 84.
RFA-2344-2021 RAM SARUP AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 85.
RFA-1148-2021 RAM PAYARI THROUGH HER LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 86.
RFA-1534-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM PAYARI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HER LRS AND ANOTHER 87.
RFA-1443-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT SAVITRI AND ANOTHER 88.
RFA-2600-2021 NAROTTAM AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) OTHERS 89.
RFA-1108-2021 DINESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 90.
RFA-1235-2021 SAJJAN KUMAR AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 91.
RFA-1134-2021 SURYAKANT STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 92.
RFA-1856-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JOGENDER 93.
RFA-2443-2021 SATYAVIR JAIN AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 94.
RFA-1489-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KAILASH AND ANOTHER 95.
RFA-2007-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VIJENDER SINGH AND ANOTHER 96.
RFA-1802-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AJIT KUMAR AND OTHERS 97.
RFA-2345-2021 ARJUN SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS MANPATI DEVI HARYANA URBAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HUDA) AND ANOTHER 98.
RFA-1200-2021 SURESHI STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 99.
RFA-1122-2021 SURESH CHANDER AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 100.
RFA-2009-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT KANTA DEVI AND ANOTHER 101.
RFA-2450-2021 PARTAP SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 102.
RFA-1521-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHARDA DEVI 103.
RFA-1465-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARTAP SINGH AND OTHERS 104.
RFA-1970-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NAVNEET MEHARIA AND ANOTHER 105.
RFA-1965-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KISHAN LAL AND OTHERS 106.
RFA-1493-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JINTENDER KUMAR 107.
RFA-1972-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SAROJ BALA AND ANOTHER 108.
RFA-2641-2021 RESHMA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 109.
RFA-1141-2021 AJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 110.
RFA-1139-2021 SHARDA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 111.
RFA-1191-2021 RAM CHANDER THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 112.
RFA-2671-2021 HAWA SINGH AND ORS HRYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) AUTHORITY AND ORS 113.
RFA-1169-2021 KHUSHI RAM AND OTHERS HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER 114.
RFA-2106-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURYAKANT AND ANOTHER 115.
RFA-1179-2021 LAJWANTI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 116.
RFA-1948-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER 117.
RFA-1452-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT RAJ BALA AND ANOTHER 118.
RFA-1240-2021 RAN SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 119.
RFA-2452-2021 KRISHAN STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 120.
RFA-1501-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SHARBATI 121.
RFA-1120-2021 HAKAM SINGH AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 122.
RFA-2006-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. ANITA DEVI AND ANOTHER 123.
RFA-1515-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ZORA SINGH AND ANOTHER 124.
RFA-177-2022 SHER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 125.
RFA-1467-2021 STATE OF HARYANA ARJUN SINGH AND ANOTHER 126.
RFA-1520-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATBIR SINGH 127.
RFA-1814-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHARBATI AND ANOTHER 128.
RFA-1809-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LAJWANTI AND ANOTHER 129.
RFA-2454-2021 SMT. MURTI DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 130.
RFA-1229-2021 HARNAM SINGH (DECEASED) THR. LRS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 131.
RFA-1989-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KHUSHI RAM AND OTHERS 132.
RFA-1482-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SAVITA DEVI AND OTHERS 133.
RFA-1446-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JAI SINGH AND ANOTHER 134.
RFA-1112-2021 SHREE RAM SHARNAM SOCIETY (REGISTERED) STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 135.
RFA-2115-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BHAG CHAND AND ANOTHER 136.
RFA-2407-2021 SHER SINGH AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) OTHERS 137.
RFA-1172-2021 SHANTI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 138.
RFA-2153-2021 VED PARKASH (SINCE DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 139.
RFA-1213-2021 DEVENDER STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 140.
RFA-1236-2021 SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 141.
RFA-1518-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUBHASH AND ANOTHER 142.
RFA-1234-2021 AJIT KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 143.
RFA-1897-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 144.
RFA-1492-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BALWANT 145.
RFA-1497-2021 STATE OF HARYANA JAI KUMAR AND ANOTHER 146.
RFA-1464-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ANUP KUMAR AND OTHERS 147.
RFA-1798-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM KISHAN 148.
RFA-1998-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DIAMOND CYCLE P LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER 149.
RFA-1230-2021 RAJ KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 150.
RFA-2113-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. BHIRAWAN BAI AND OTHERS 151.
RFA-2429-2021 NIRMALA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 152.
RFA-2441-2021 MANOHAR LAL DECEASED THROUGH LR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 153.
RFA-1462-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. NIRMAL AND ANOTHER 154.
RFA-1512-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHANTI DEVI 155.
RFA-1158-2021 FATEH SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 156.
RFA-1971-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER 157.
RFA-2458-2021 SATBIR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 158.
RFA-1495-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NAROTTAM AND ANOTHER 159.
RFA-1878-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER 160.
RFA-15-2022 RATI RAM HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER 161.
RFA-1176-2021 VARINDER STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 162.
RFA-2102-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SINGH AND ANOTHER 163.
RFA-2107-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DR. TELU RAM AND ANOTHER 164.
RFA-1478-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER 165.
RFA-1144-2021 SMT. SARITA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 166.
RFA-1114-2021 RAM SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 167.
RFA-2442-2021 SMT. BITA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 168.
RFA-1476-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ISHWAR SINGH AND ANOTHER 169.
RFA-1435-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS 170.
RFA-1138-2021 RAM SARUP (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 171.
RFA-1995-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMIT AND OTHERS 172.
RFA-1938-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MEWA AND OTHERS 173.
RFA-2632-2021 MEWA AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 174.
RFA-1107-2021 GOBIND RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 175.
RFA-1178-2021 SAMMAT SINGH HUDA NOW HSVP AND ANOTHER 176.
RFA-2116-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. PROMILA DHAWAN 177.
RFA-1833-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS 178.
RFA-1162-2021 YASH PAL AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 179.
RFA-1447-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH KUMAR AND OTHER 180.
RFA-1477-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SARUP AND OTHERS 181.
RFA-1186-2021 RUGHNATH ALIAS RAGHUNATH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 182.
RFA-1494-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJESH AND ANOTHER 183.
RFA-1118-2021 RAM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 184.
RFA-1963-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT RAJPTI AND ANOTHER
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) 185.
RFA-1935-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MANOHAR LAL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER 186.
RFA-1524-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUBHASH CHANDER AND ANOTHER 187.
RFA-1850-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS 188.
RFA-1459-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER 189.
RFA-1137-2021 PARKASH @ OM PARKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 190.
RFA-1485-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SARUP AND OTHERS 191.
RFA-1449-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM NIWAS AND OTHERS 192.
RFA-1504-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SINGH AND OTHERS 193.
RFA-1124-2021 BHANI AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 194.
RFA-1522-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SHANTI AND OTHERS 195.
RFA-1498-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER FATEH SINGH AND OTHERS 196.
RFA-1165-2021 ISHWAR SINGH AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 197.
RFA-1450-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 198.
RFA-2656-2021 SUBHASH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 199.
RFA-1150-2021 ANIL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 200.
RFA-2110-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER 201.
RFA-1149-2021 KRISHAN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 202.
RFA-1954-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAN SINGH AND OTHERS 203.
RFA-1468-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT USHA KIRAN AND ANOTHER 204.
RFA-1526-2021 STATE OF HARYANA MAHABIR AND OTHERS 205.
RFA-1451-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JAIBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER 206.
RFA-1448-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUNIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER 207.
RFA-1175-2021 SMT. SHANTI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 208.
RFA-2445-2021 RAJINDER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 209.
RFA-1140-2021 ANUP KUMAR AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) 210.
RFA-1528-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHREE RAM SHARNAM SOCIETY 211.
RFA-1143-2021 SMT. CHANDRO DEVI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 212.
RFA-1145-2021 SUSHIL KUMAR AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 213.
RFA-9084-2014 SHIV KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA & ORS 214.
RFA-1953-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM SARUP SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS 215.
RFA-1127-2021 ANUP KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 216.
RFA-1233-2021 SUNIL KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 217.
RFA-1174-2021 MEWA AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 218.
RFA-1532-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SATBIR AND ANOTHER 219.
RFA-1170-2021 SURESH KUMAR AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 220.
RFA-1864-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DEVENDER 221.
RFA-1491-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH CHANDER AND OTHERS 222.
RFA-1168-2021 BIHARI AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 223.
RFA-1825-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT SUNEHARI AND ANOTHER 224.
RFA-1820-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER TARA CHAND AND ANOTHER 225.
RFA-1455-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT RAJBALA AND ANOTHER 226.
RFA-2384-2021 KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 227.
RFA-1196-2021 MADAN LAL STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 228.
RFA-1105-2021 AMAR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 229.
RFA-1529-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT MANJU 230.
RFA-1163-2021 SMT. SURINDER ALIAS SINDHU STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 231.
RFA-125-2022 SURESH CHANDER AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 232.
RFA-1488-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SAJJAN KUMAR AND OTHERS 233.
RFA-1185-2021 ZORA SINGH AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 234.
RFA-2150-2021 MUKESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) OTHERS 235.
RFA-1608-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER NARAIN DASS AND ANOTHER 236.
RFA-1113-2021 SUKH RAM STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS OTHERS 237.
RFA-1505-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LICHMI DEVI AND OTHERS 238.
RFA-2338-2021 RAM SARUP SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS HUDA (NOW HSVP) AND ORS 239.
RFA-19-2022 PARKASH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 240.
RFA-1180-2021 SUBHASH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 241.
RFA-1135-2021 LICHMI DEVI (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LRS AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 242.
RFA-1981-2021 STATE OF HARYANA RATI RAM AND ANOTHER 243.
RFA-1969-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SWAMI AMARANAND CHELA SHAKRANAND CHALA PARMANAND 244.
RFA-1106-2021 JASWANT RAI AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 245.
RFA-1480-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUDHIR AND ANOTHER 246.
RFA-1511-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER JUG LAL AND ANOTHER 247.
RFA-1470-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT MURTI DEVI AND OTHERS 248.
RFA-1490-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KRISHAN KUMAR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER 249.
RFA-1126-2021 SATBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 250.
RFA-1936-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BIHARI AND OTHERS 251.
RFA-2100-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHIV KUMAR AND ANOTHER 252.
RFA-1437-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SARITA AND ANOTHER 253.
RFA-1154-2021 KISHAN AND OTHERS HUDA NOW HSVP AND OTHERS 254.
RFA-1177-2021 MUKESH KUMAR HUDA NOW HSVP AND ORS 255.
RFA-1960-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GOBIND RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS 256.
RFA-1441-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT BITA AND ANOTHER 257.
RFA-1151-2021 BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 258.
RFA-1487-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND SMT. RAJ DULARI AND
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) ANOTHER ANOTHER 259.
RFA-1481-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHANTI NIKETAN COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED AND ANOTHER 260.
RFA-2536-2021 SHARBATI DEVI SINCE DECESED THROUGH HER LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 261.
RFA-1111-2021 RAM SARUP (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 262.
RFA-1147-2021 DHAN SINGH ALIAS CHAN SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 263.
RFA-1507-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. CHANDER KALA AND OTHERS 264.
RFA-2459-2021 RAM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 265.
RFA-1957-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SUKH RAM AND ANOTHER 266.
RFA-1181-2021 SMT. SAROJ BALA STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 267.
RFA-1128-2021 KIRNA DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR 268.
RFA-2010-2021 STATE OF HARYANA MAMAN RAM AND ANOTHER 269.
RFA-151-2022 KRISHAN KUMAR DECEASED THROUGH LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 270.
RFA-1952-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER 271.
RFA-1194-2021 RAMBIR AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 272.
RFA-1432-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAMBIR AND ANOTHER 273.
RFA-1956-2021 STATE OF HARYANA MADAN LAL AND ANOTHER 274.
RFA-1129-2021 NARAIN DASS THRIUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 275.
RFA-1533-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJENDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER 276.
RFA-1516-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. USHA KIRAN AND ANOTHER 277.
RFA-1977-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS 278.
RFA-1202-2021 SMT. MANJU STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 279.
RFA-1463-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KAMLA DEVI AND OTHERS 280.
RFA-2602-2021 MAYA STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 281.
RFA-1121-2021 THE SHANTI NIKETAN COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) LIMITED HANSI 282.
RFA-1509-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. SAJNI DEVI AND ANOTHER 283.
RFA-1924-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER IMARTI DEVI AND ANOTHER 284.
RFA-18-2022 MAHABIR AND ANR HUDA AND ANR 285.
RFA-1119-2021 GOBIND RAM ( DECEASED ) THROUGH HIS LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 286.
RFA-1130-2021 SMT. USHA KIRAN STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 287.
RFA-1466-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER DALEL SINGH ALIAS ZILE SINGH AND OTHERS 288.
RFA-2460-2021 RAMESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 289.
RFA-1517-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VIDHYA PARKESH AND ORS.
290.
RFA-2003-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SMT. NIRMALA AND ANOTHER 291.
RFA-1187-2021 DARSHAN SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 292.
RFA-1142-2021 RADHEY SHAM STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 293.
RFA-1131-2021 PIRTHI STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 294.
RFA-2444-2021 SAVITA DEVI AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 295.
RFA-2446-2021 SUBE SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 296.
RFA-1959-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KIRAN DEVI 297.
RFA-2406-2021 CHATTAR SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 298.
RFA-1161-2021 KUSHI RAM AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 299.
RFA-1125-2021 RAM SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 300.
RFA-1994-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER BISHNA 301.
RFA-1523-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KRISHAN KUMAR 302.
RFA-1444-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CHANDER BHAN AND OTHERS 303.
RFA-1519-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER 304.
RFA-1525-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS 305.
RFA-1206-2021 DALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 306.
RFA-1943-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAJINDER AND ANOTHER
Sr.No.
Case No.
Name of the petitioners Name of the Respondent(s) 307.
RFA-387-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER LILA AND ANOTHER 308.
RFA-374-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER PARKASH ALIAS OM PARKASH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER 309.
RFA-388-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER GOBIND RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS 310.
RFA-386-2022 STATE OF HARYANA HAWA SINGH AND OTHERS 311.
RFA-375-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RADHEY SHAM AND ANOTHER 312.
RFA-385-2022 STATE OF HARYANA SAMMAT SINGH AND ANOTHER 313.
RFA-382-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAMDASS 314.
RFA-395-2022 STATE OF HARYANA RADHEY SHAM AND OTHERS 315.
RFA-383-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER MEWA AND ANOTHER 316.
RFA-377-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SADHU RAM (DECEASED) THR. LRS.
AND OTHERS 317.
RFA-379-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER SHER SINGH DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS 318.
RFA-391-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER HARNAM SINGH NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANOTHER 319.
RFA-378-2022 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER VED PARKASH AND ANOTHER 320.
RFA-2631-2021 RAM KUMAR @ RAM KAWAR (DECEASED) THR.
LRS. AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 321.
RFA-2505-2021 BALDEV AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 322.
RFA-1927-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER RAM KUMAR ALIAS RAM KAWAR SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS 323.
RFA-1453-2021 STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER AMARJEET AND OTHERS (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge