Suraj Kaur And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh And Other Connected Cases Reserved On: 16.01.2025 Pronounced On: 05.04.2025 Suraj Kaur and Others ... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate, for the Market Committee.

Ms. Safia Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

I.

Preface With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, 14 connected regular first appeals, details whereof are given at the foot of the judgment, shall stand disposed by this common order. The pivotal issue is to assess the market value of the acquired land. The necessary and relevant details of the acquisition are as under:- S.No.

Particulars 18.09.2002 Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") was published proposing to acquire the land for extension of New Grain and Vegetable Market, Charkhi Dadri.

13.07.2003 Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published.

S.No.

Particulars 13.02.2004 The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "LAC" offered to pay to the landowners @ ₹2,00,000/- per acre while acquiring the land measuring 101 kanals 6 marlas comprised in rectangle No. 171//11, 12/1, 12/2, 19/1, 19/2, 20, 21 & 22, 184//1, 2 and 185//2/1, 2/2, 3, 4/1, 4/2 & 5. 22.04.2009/ 22.08.2009 The Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as "RC") has assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ₹6,00,000/- per acre.

II.

Brief Facts The landowners claim that the market value of the acquired land was not less than ₹5,000/- per square yard as the acquired property was located within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri which was disputed by the Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri.

The landowners, in order to prove their case, examined the following witnesses:- Sr.

No.

Witness Number Name of the Witness PW.1 Man Singh PW.2 Smt. Suraj Kaur PW.3 Dariya Singh PW.4 Ram Chander PW.5 Jagdish Chander, Junior Engineer, Office of the District Town Planning Office, Bhiwani PW.6 Mukhtiar Singh, Kanungo, D.C.

Office, Bhiwani PW.7 Jagdish Chander, Junior Engineer, PWD (B&R), Provincial Sub Division, Charkhi Dadri PW.8 Satyawan Singh, HRC, D.C.Office, Bhiwani PW.9 Mukesh Kumar, Clerk, J.E.

Branch, Municipal Committee, PW.10 Vijay Kumar Jain, Draftsman PW.11 Sajjan Singh, Patwari PW.12 Sanjay

On the other hand, the Market Committee, Charkhi Dadri, has examined RW.1 Prem Chand Sharma, Executive Officer-cum-Secretary. The landowners have relied upon the following various other documents except the sale deeds:- Sr. No.

Exhibit Number Description of the document Ex.PW.5/A Print of Drawing of Delimitation of Urban Area of Ex.PW.6/A Copy of Award dated 30.09.999 Ex.PW.6/B Copy of Collector's Rate Ex.PW.6/C Copy of Award No.1 dated 13.02.2004 Ex.PW.7/A Copy of Map Ex.PW.8/A Copy of Collector rate of District Bhiwani for the year 1998-99 Ex.PW.8/B Copy of Collector rate of District Bhiwani for the year 1999-2000 Ex.PW.8/C Copy of Collector rate of District Bhiwani for the year 2000-2001 Ex.PW.8/D Copy of Collector rate of District Bhiwani for the year 2001-2002 Ex.PW.8/E Copy of Collector rate of District Bhiwani for the year 2001-2002 Ex.PW.8/F Copy of Collector rate of District Bhiwani for the year 2002-2003 Ex.PW.9/A Copy of Map of Municipal Area, Charkhi Dadri Ex.PW.10/A Copy of Map 14.

Ex.P17 Copy of Collector Rate of Charkhi Dadri for the year 2004-2005 III.

Arguments Put Forth Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book along with the requisitioned record.

The learned counsel representing the appellants contend that the RC has failed to assess the correct market value of the acquired land. They submitted that the landowners produced as many as 16 sale deeds which prove that the market value of the acquired land was not less than ₹10,00,000/- per acre.

Per contra, the learned State counsel submits that the RC has erred in assessing the market value @ ₹6,00,000/- per acre. He submits that except the sale deeds No. 4509 dated 21.03.2002, 1672 dated 10.08.2001 and 1357 dated 18.07.2001 (Ex.P13 to Ex.P15) all the other sale deeds are post 18.09.2002. He further submits that the sale instance No. 4509 dated 21.03.2002, 1672 dated 10.08.2001 (Ex.P13 and Ex.P14) are with respect to smaller parcels of the land located far away from the acquired land which are not comparable with the acquired land.

IV.

Analysis and Discussion At this stage, it is considered necessary to reproduce a tabulated compilation of the sale deeds produced by the landowners:- Sr.

No.

Exhibit No.

Sale Deed No.& Sale Consideration/ Price per acre (In ₹) Area sold (In Sq.

Yards Location & Type of Land P1 4760/19.02.2025 4,05,000/- 16,94,21.31 1157.06 P2 2994/18.10.2003 10,000/- 96,80,00,000/- P3 2323/26.08.2003 2,36,000/- 6,51,034.58 1754.5 P4 1978/04.08.2003 22,49,000/- 16,95,331.07 710.87 P5 1028/24.06.2003 1,75,000/- 12,17,3391.30 695.75 P6 1247/01.07.2003 1,50,000/- 11,99,999.99 P7 2891/03.10.2003 1,50,000/- 11,99,999.99 P8 3341/03.11.2003 2,52,000/- 6,50,322.5 1875.5 P9 3212/23.10.2003 1,58,500/- 8,74,482.75 877.25 P10 3048/13.10.2003 15,64,500/- 6,50,181.81 11646.25 P11 2302/23.12.2002 1,92,500/- 7,51,219.51 1240.25 P12 4554/22.03.2002 1,35,000/- 5,99,999.99 P13 4509/21.03.2002 2,31,500/- 21,78,823.52 514.25

Sr.

No.

Exhibit No.

Sale Deed No.& Sale Consideration/ Price per acre (In ₹) Area sold (In Sq.

Yards Location & Type of Land 14.

P14 1672/10.08.2001 1,50,000/- 5,92,595.01 1225.12 15.

P15 1357/18.07.2001 1,24,000/- 6,01,212.12 998.25 16.

P16 2070/08.08.2003 34,000/- 7,77,142.85 211.75 This Court has considered the submissions and analyzed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties. As already noticed, the acquisition is for the purpose of extension of New Grain and Vegetable Market. Originally, the land for establishing New Grain and Vegetable Market was proposed to be acquired vide notification dated 08.06.1998 with respect to the land measuring 26 acres 4 kanals and 36 marlas of the adjoining land. The LAC pronounced the award on 30.09.1999 offering to pay to the landowners @ ₹4,00,000/- per acre. A copy of the award is Ex.PW.6/A. In this acquisition, the land was acquired out of rectangle No. 147, 148, 169 and 170 and khasra Nos. 1677 & 1683. In terms of the agricultural land, a rectangle is equivalent to 25 acres of land.

Each ordinary acre is 4840 square yards. In the aforesaid acquisition, the land measuring 261⁄2 acres of land was acquired, whereas now the adjoining land measuring 121⁄2 acres approximately has been acquired. Previously, the land comprised in rectangle No. 170 was acquired. Now the land out of rectangles No. 171, 184 and 185 has been acquired. A bare look at the layout plan produced on the file as Ex.PW.10/A proved that the land in L-shape has been acquired which is located on junction between Dadri- Mahindergarh and Dadri-Kanina road.

Vegetable Market, the price of the land located in the vicinity was likely to steeply rise. However, there is no evidence to support the aforesaid facts. Sale deed No. 2994 dated 08.10.2003 (Ex.P2) is only with respect to the plot measuring 20 square yards which appears to have been sold for constructing a shop. This sale deed is out of the land comprised in rectangle No. 188, however, this sale instance is executed post 18.09.2002. In absence of any material to show that the sale instances of a comparable parcels of the land located nearby, the RC has erred in relying upon the sale instances No. 2302 dated 23.12.2002. The sale deed No. 2302 dated 23.12.2002 (Ex.P11) is with respect to the land comprised in khasra No. 634 whereas the sale deed No. 4554 dated 22.03.2002 (Ex.12) is with respect to the land comprised in khasra No.

1403, whereas the sale deed No. 4554 dated 22.03.2002 (Ex.P12) is with respect to the land comprised in khasra No. 1403. There is no evidence to prove the location of these khasra numbers. However, the RC has correctly held that as per award (Ex.PW.6/B) passed by the LAC, the market value of the acquired land has been assessed @ ₹4,00,000/- per acre as on 08.06.1998. Hence, the landowners are entitled to ₹6,00,000/- per acre by granting 12% per annum increase from 08.06.1998 to 18.09.2002. The increase @ 12% per annum is not excessive particularly when in the adjoining plot New Grain and Vegetable Market was planned to be developed. The present acquisition is for its extension.

V.

Decision 14.

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground to reduce or enhance or in other words, modify the amount of market value of

the acquired land assessed by the RC. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed.

15.

The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the appeals shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge April 05, 2025 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr. No.

Case No.

Party's Name RFA-4567-2009 Hari Kishan And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Others RFA-4568-2009 Geeta And Ors. Vs. State Of Haryana And Others RFA-5117-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Man Singh And Another RFA-5118-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Hari Krishan And Others RFA-5119-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Sushila @ Silwanti And Others RFA-5120-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Ram Kishan And Another.

RFA-5121-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Lachmmi Narain And Others RFA-5122-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Suraj Kaur And Another RFA-5460-2009 Market Committee Charkhi Dadri Vs. Asha Rani And Others RFA-5578-2009 Lachmi Narain And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Others RFA-329-2010 Sushila @ Silwanti And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Others RFA-524-2010 Asha Rani And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Others RFA-525-2010 Ram Karan And Others Vs. State Of Haryana And Others (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge April 05, 2025 "DK"