Sardool Singh And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: January 19, 2017 Sr.
No.
Case No.
Title Appellant(s) Respondent(s) 1.
RFA-3894-2010 SARDOOL SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 2.
RFA-2264-2010 STATE OF HARYANA RAM PAL AND OTHERS 3.
RFA-2265-2010 STATE OF HARYANA RAM PAL AND OTHERS 4.
RFA-2266-2010 STATE OF HARYANA HARPAL AND OTHERS 5.
RFA-2267-2010 STATE OF HARYANA RAJ PAL AND OTHERS 6.
RFA-2512-2010 STATE OF HARYANA JAI PAL SINGH 7.
RFA-2564-2010 STATE OF HARYANA KIRPAL KAUR 8.
RFA-2565-2010 STATE OF HARYANA PHOOL SINGH AND ORS.
9.
RFA-2566-2010 STATE OF HARYANA SHER SINGH 10.
RFA-2567-2010 STATE OF HARYANA SURINDER SINGH AND ORS.
11.
RFA-2568-2010 STATE OF HARYANA LAL CHAND AND ORS.
12.
RFA-2569-2010 STATE OF HARYANA NARATA RAM AND ORS.
13.
RFA-2570-2010 STATE OF HARYANA PURAN CHAND AND ORS.
14.
RFA-2585-2010 STATE OF HARYANA SURESH KUMAR AND ORS.
15.
RFA-2586-2010 STATE OF HARYANA PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.
16.
RFA-2587-2010 STATE OF HARYANA MADAN LAL AND ORS.
17.
RFA-2588-2010 STATE OF HARYANA HUKAM SINGH AND ORS.
18.
RFA-2589-2010 STATE OF HARYANA ABHAY SINGH AND ORS.
19.
RFA-2590-2010 STATE OF HARYANA KRISHAN CHAND AND ORS.
20.
RFA-2591-2010 STATE OF HARYANA RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.
21.
RFA-2592-2010 STATE OF HARYANA MOHAN LAL AND ORS.
22.
RFA-2616-2010 STATE OF HARYANA LAJJA RAM AND ORS.
23.
RFA-2617-2010 STATE OF HARYANA HUKAM SINGH AND ORS.
24.
RFA-2618-2010 STATE OF HARYANA VED PARKASH AND ORS.
25.
RFA-2619-2010 STATE OF HARYANA RAJ RANI AND ORS.
26.
RFA-2620-2010 STATE OF HARYANA RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.
27.
RFA-2621-2010 STATE OF HARYANA DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS 28.
RFA-2622-2010 STATE OF HARYANA SATPAL AND ORS.
29.
RFA-2623-2010 STATE OF HARYANA PARKASH SINGH AND ORS.
30.
RFA-3058-2010 STATE OF HARYANA KAPOOR CHAND AND ORS.
31.
RFA-3296-2010 ABHAY SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
32.
RFA-3297-2010 PARKASH SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
33.
RFA-3345-2010 STATE OF HARYANA SARDOOL SINGH AND ORS 34.
RFA-3346-2010 STATE OF HARYANA NIRMAL SINGH AND ORS.
35.
RFA-3347-2010 STATE OF HARYANA SARDOOL SINGH AND ORS 36.
RFA-3893-2010 (O&M) SARDOOL SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 37.
RFA-3895-2010 NIRMAL SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 38.
RFA-4653-2010 MOHAN LAL & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
39.
RFA-4654-2010 LAJJA RAM S/O NANKU STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
40.
RFA-4655-2010 DARSHAN & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
41.
RFA-5164-2010 HUKAM SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
42.
RFA-5165-2010 HUKAM SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
43.
RFA-5166-2010 VED PARKESH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
44.
RFA-5195-2010 KRIPAUL KAUR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
45.
RFA-5196-2010 NARATA RAM STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
46.
RFA-5197-2010 SHER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 47.
RFA-5202-2010 RAM PAL AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
48.
RFA-5300-2010 KAPOOR CHAND STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
49.
RFA-5353-2010 LAL CHAND AND ANR.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
50.
RFA-5354-2010 PURAN CHAND AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
51.
RFA-5355-2010 PHOOL SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
52.
RFA-887-2011 JAI PAL SINGH XEN CONSTRUCTION NO.
14 AND ORS 53.
RFA-888-2011 RAM PAL AND ORS XEN CONSTRUCTION NO.
14 AND ORS 54.
RFA-1037-2011 MADAN LAL AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
55.
RFA-1038-2011 RAVI KUMAR AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
56.
RFA-1039-2011 SATPAL AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
57.
RFA-1040-2011 KRISHAN CHAND AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
58.
RFA-1041-2011 RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
59.
RFA-1042-2011 RAJ RANI & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
60.
RFA-2280-2011 SURESH KUMAR AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
61.
RFA-3462-2011 HARPAL AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 62.
RFA-3463-2011 RAJ PAL AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
63.
RFA-4361-2011 SURINDER SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
64.
RFA-1980-2012 SHYAM LAL STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 65.
RFA-1981-2012 NARVEER SINGH AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 66.
RFA-1982-2012 SUSHIL KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 67.
RFA-1983-2012 YOGESH KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 68.
RFA-1984-2012 RASSAL SINGH AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 69.
RFA-1985-2012 SURINDER SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 70.
RFA-1986-2012 KRESHNI DEVI STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 71.
RFA-1987-2012 AJMER SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 72.
RFA-1988-2012 JASMER SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 73.
RFA-1989-2012 BALDEV SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 74.
RFA-1990-2012 OM PARKASH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 75.
RFA-1991-2012 KRISHAN KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 76.
RFA-1992-2012 BALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 77.
RFA-1993-2012 BALBIR SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 78.
RFA-1994-2012 BALBIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
79.
RFA-1995-2012 JASWINDER KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 80.
RFA-1996-2012 PURAN CHAND AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 81.
RFA-1997-2012 KRISHAN CHAND STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 82.
RFA-1998-2012 VINOD KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 83.
RFA-1999-2012 SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 84.
RFA-2000-2012 CHANDER KALI STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS 85.
RFA-2032-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SHYAM LAL & ORS.
86.
RFA-2033-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SUSHIL KUMAR 87.
RFA-2034-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SHEO RAM 88.
RFA-2035-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
BALBIR SINGH 89.
RFA-2036-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
KRISHAN CHAND 90.
RFA-2037-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
VINOD SAHNI 91.
RFA-2038-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SURINDER SINGH 92.
RFA-2039-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
BALBIR SINGH 93.
RFA-2040-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SANJEEV KUMAR 94.
RFA-2041-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
OM PARKASH 95.
RFA-2042-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
KRESHNI 96.
RFA-2043-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
VINOD KUMAR 97.
RFA-2044-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
KRISHAN KUMAR 98.
RFA-2045-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
BALBIR SINGH
99.
RFA-2046-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
JASMER SINGH
100. RFA-2047-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
CHANDER KALI
101. RFA-2048-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
NARVEER SINGH
102. RFA-2049-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
SANT RAM
103. RFA-2050-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
DAYAL CHAND AND ORS
104. RFA-2051-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
PURAN CHAND
105. RFA-2134-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
BALDEV SINGH
106. RFA-2135-2012 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
JASWINDER KUMAR
107. RFA-5771-2012 BALBIR SINGH AND ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
108. RFA-7176-2012 VINOD SAHNI AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
109. RFA-3247-2013 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
AJMER SINGH 110.
RFA-3248-2013 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
RASAAL SINGH 111.
RFA-3249-2013 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
YOGESH KUMAR 112.
RFA-398-2014 STATE OF HARYANA MOHINDER SINGH 113.
RFA-399-2014 STATE OF HARYANA RANDHIR SINGH 114.
RFA-400-2014 STATE OF HARYANA BHAGWATI 115.
RFA-401-2014 STATE OF HARYANA MAYA RAM 116.
RFA-402-2014 STATE OF HARYANA KAMLA DEVI 117.
RFA-403-2014 STATE OF HARYANA BALBIR SINGH 118.
RFA-404-2014 STATE OF HARYANA PARMAL 119.
RFA-405-2014 STATE OF HARYANA RAJ KUMAR
120. RFA-406-2014 STATE OF HARYANA TELU SINGH
121. RFA-407-2014 STATE OF HARYANA MEGH PAL
122. RFA-408-2014 STATE OF HARYANA BHARAT SINGH
123. RFA-409-2014 STATE OF HARYANA LEELU SINGH
124. RFA-410-2014 STATE OF HARYANA JHANG SHER
125. RFA-411-2014 STATE OF HARYANA SHER SINGH
126. RFA-753-2014 RAM KUMAR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
127. RFA-754-2014 BALBIR SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
128. RFA-755-2014 RAJ KUMAR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
129. RFA-756-2014 LEELU SINGH & ANR STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
130. RFA-757-2014 JANGSHER & ANR STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
131. RFA-758-2014 RAJ BALA STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
132. RFA-759-2014 RANDHIR SINGH & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
133. RFA-760-2014 JANGSHER & ANR STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
134. RFA-761-2014 PARMAL STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
135. RFA-762-2014 DHARAMBIR & ORS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
136. RFA-2248-2014 TELU SINGH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
137. RFA-4066-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS BHUPINDER SOIN & ORS
138. RFA-4067-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS KULBIR SINGH
139. RFA-4068-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS SUNDER KAUR
140. RFA-4069-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS GURCHARAN SINGH
141. RFA-4070-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS INDERJIT SINGH
142. RFA-4071-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS SATINDER LAMBA AND OTHERS
143. RFA-4072-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS ASHWANI KUMAR
144. RFA-4073-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS JOGINDER BEDI
145. RFA-4074-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS MOHANBIR
146. RFA-4075-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS JASBIR SINGH
147. RFA-4076-2014 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS SURINDER KUMAR
148. RFA-8906-2014 MEGH PAL @ MEGH RAJ & OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
149. RFA-405-2015 SATINDER LAMBA AND ANR STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
150. RFA-406-2015 MOHANBIR SINGH @ MOHANBIR SINGH LAMBA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
151. RFA-3147-2015 KAMALJIT SINGH STATE OF HARYANA & ORS
152. RFA-3221-2015 PIARA SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
153. RFA-3601-2015 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS RAJINDER SINGH
154. RFA-5052-2015 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS KAMALJEET SINGH
155. RFA-5637-2015 STATE OF HARYANA & ORS PIARA SINGH
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present:
For the Claimants/Landowners Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 3893 to 3895 of 2010) Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 753 to 762 of 2014) Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 5202 of 2010; 3462 & 3463 of 2011; 887 and 888 of 2011) Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 3296 & 3297 of 2010, 3147 and 3221 of 2015) Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 4361 of 2011, 5195 to 5197 & 5353 to 5355 of 2010 for the appellants and in RFA Nos. 2564 to 2570 of 2010 for the respondents) Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 4653 to 4655, 2592, 2616 and 2621 of 2010) Mr. Uday Chauhan, Advocate (in RFA No. 8906 of 2014 for the appellants and in RFA Nos. 398, 401, 407 of 2014 for the respondents) Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate
(in RFA Nos. 2037, 2047 and 7176 of 2012) Mr. Jastej Singh, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 5300 of 2010; 1037 to 1042 & 2280 of 2011; 1980 to 2000 and 5771 of 2012) Mr. Yashvinder Singh, Advocate (in RFA No. 2248 of 2014) Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate (in RFA Nos. 5164 to 5166 of 2010) For the State of Haryana Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, with Mr. Abhinash Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL) Vide this judgment I shall decide a batch of 155 appeals, of which 85 appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana and 70 appeals have been preferred by the claimants/landowners. For, the matter arises out of the same acquisition and the question that requires determination in these appeals is common, thus, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, by consensus the facts are being culled out from RFA No. 3894 of 2010.
Vide a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act'), published on 13.10.2004, the land that formed part of six villages, i.e. Kalanpur (HB No. 461), Sialba (HB No. 460), Faridpur (HB No. 452), Daulatpur Malyan (HB No. 453), Uncha Chandna (HB No. 456) and Jhar Chandna (HB No. 450), was sought to be acquired for construction of 'Shahbad Feeder', by the Irrigation Department of the Government. The final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
made on 18.3.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector though vide separate awards, assessed the market value of the acquired land for all the villages at Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved of the assessment and the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimant/landowners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, and prayed for a reference to the Civil Court. The Reference Court, on an analysis of the material and evidence on record, reached a conclusion that the sale instances that were being relied upon by the claimant/landowners could never be taken into account, for, these were of an extremely small or a negligible area. Further, as those were of another village. As a result, the Reference Court relied upon an earlier award dated 16.1.2010 (Ex.
P-3), vide which the value of a land situated in village Darajpur, which too was acquired for the same purpose, was assessed at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. For, both the villages i.e. Darajpur and Kalanpur (under acquisition in the present proceedings) were contiguous, and there was hardly any time difference between the two notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act in both the proceedings. Accordingly, the claimant/landowners were awarded compensation in terms of the award dated 16.1.2010 (Ex. P-3) rendered by the Reference Court, except an award dated 28.1.2015 (being assailed in RFA Nos. 3147 and 3221 of 2015), vide which the Reference Court had assessed compensation at Rs.16,50,000/- per acre. That is how, as indicated above, both the parties are in appeals before this Court.
Of course, the State has prayed to set aside the award, whereas the claimant/landowners seek further enhancement.
that all what form basis of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is its previous award/judicial pronouncement (Ex. P-3), vide which the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. And, in the appeals preferred against the said award (Ex. P-3), this Court had further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,887/- per Sq. Mtr., vide order and judgment dated 5.5.2016 rendered in RFA No. 3356 of 2010 (State of Haryana and others v. Santokh Singh and others) and other connected matters. Therefore, the claimant/landowners even in the present appeals are also entitled to the same compensation.
Per contra, Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, submits that the claim of the landowners that they too are entitled to the same compensation as awarded by this Court in the case of Santokh Singh (supra), is wholly misconceived. For, the decision rendered by this Court in the said case was in turn based on another decision of this Court, dated 4.10.2012, rendered in RFA No. 1955 of 2005 (Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana), vide which this Court had assessed the value of the land that formed part of the villages Bhatauli and Khera, and since in the case of Santokh Singh (supra), a part of the land was also situated in village Khera, this Court awarded the same compensation to the claimant/landowners in the case of Santokh Singh (supra) as was awarded by this Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra).
Thus, he submits that land situated in village Khera was the common factor in both the proceedings, which is not the position in matter in hand, for, the acquired land in the present acquisition formed part of six other villages.
in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) was situated within the municipal limits, and was acquired for police line and quarters for police staff, the claimant/landowners even in Santokh Singh's case (supra) were not entitled to the same compensation, for, the land under acquisition in the case of Santokh Singh lay beyond the municipal limits, and was hardly a comparable instance.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Concededly, vide notification under Section 4 of the Act, dated 13.10.2004, a land that formed part of the revenue estates of six villages, i.e. Kalanpur, Sialba, Faridpur, Daulatpur Malyan, Uncha Chandna and Jhar Chandna, was acquired for construction of Shahbad Feeder. It is the common case of the parties that the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the value of the acquired land for all the villages at the rate of Rs. 5,00,000/- per acre. In the absence of any cogent or credible evidence on record, the Reference Court relied upon its previous award/judicial pronouncement dated 16.1.2010 (Ex. P-3) vide which the value in respect of a land in village Darajpur was assessed at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. Both the villages, i.e. Darajpur and Kalanpur, one of the villages in the present acquisition, were 'adjacent' and 'abut' each other.
The purpose of acquisition in both the proceedings was common, i.e. for construction of Shahbad Feeder. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the earlier proceedings was issued on 20.9.2004 and in the acquisition in question, less than a month thereafter on 13.10.2004.
dated 16.1.2010 (Ex. P-3) [Satpal and another v. State of Haryana and another (LAC Case No. 6 of 24.8.2006)], this Court, vide its judgment dated 5.5.2016 rendered in Santokh Singh (supra), enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,887/per Sq.Mtr. Significantly, this was never the case of the State, at any stage, that land situated in village Darajpur was incomparable with the land that formed part of village Kalanpur, owing to it's quality, character and value. In fact, I am reminded to point out that even in the earlier acquisition, initiated pursuant to the notification under Section 4, dated 20.9.2004, a part of the acquired land also formed part of the revenue estate of village Kalanpur itself. And, much before the Reference Court rendered an award in this case on 13.03.2010, vide an award dated 27.01.2010 [Hazara Singh v.
State of Haryana and others (LAC Case No. 150 of 15.3.2007)], the Reference Court assessed the value of the land situated in village Kalanpur at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre. Thus, the issue as regards true value of the acquired land in the case of Santokh Singh (supra) was not only confined to village Khera but also to many other villages, including Darajpur and Kalanpur, and the Court had uniformally awarded the compensation to all the claimant/landowners at the rate of Rs. 2,887/- per Sq.Mtr. Thus, the argument that has been advanced by learned State counsel that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Santokh Singh (supra) would have no bearing in these proceedings, pales into insignificance.
Ex facie, on a comprehensive analysis of the material and evidence on record, this Court in Santokh Singh's case (supra) had assessed and determined the true value of the land that formed part of the revenue estate of village Kalanpur.
Therefore, one wonders as to how the State could still seek re-evaluation or re-assessment of the value of the land situated in the same village. Likewise, the submission of learned State counsel that since the acquired land in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) was far more prime and valuable than the land that was subject matter of assessment in the case of Santokh Singh (supra) and, therefore, the claimant/landowners even in the case of Santokh Singh were not entitled to the same compensation, lacks conviction, for, no such issue arises in the matter in hand. Needless to assert that, if the State is aggrieved by the assessment and the compensation awarded by this Court to the claimant/landowners in the case of Santokh Singh (supra), it may resort to the remedies as admissible in law.
The fact remains, what indeed is required to be determined in these appeals is the market value of the land that formed part of the revenue estate of village Kalanpur and five other villages. And, concededly this Court vide its judgment dated 5.5.2016 in the case of Santokh Singh (supra) has already assessed and evaluated the true value thereof. Faced with this, what is sought to be urged by the learned State counsel is that at best the claimant/landowners, whose land was situated in village Kalanpur, could claim the same compensation as awarded by this Court in the case of Santokh Singh (supra), for, the land situated in other five villages was never a subject matter of assessment in the said case. Even that would not advance the case of the State a bit.
What needs to be noticed is that the Collector himself had assessed the market value of the acquired land, situated in all the six villages, uniformally at Rs.
which, rather, substantiates that there was no difference, in terms of quality and value, in the land that formed part of village Kalanpur and the rest five villages. For, otherwise, there was no occasion for the Collector to award the same compensation to all the claimant/landowners. Even otherwise, neither any evidence was led in this regard nor any such argument was advanced before this Court.
In conspectus of the above, the only and inevitable conclusion one could reach is that the claimant/landowners in these appeals are entitled to the same compensation as has already been awarded by this Court, vide judgment dated 5.5.2016 in the case of Santokh Singh (supra). As a result, the appeals preferred by the claimant/landowners are allowed in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Santokh Singh and the award rendered by the Reference Court is accordingly modified. And, as a necessary consequence the appeals filed by the State are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE January 19, 2017 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:
YES / NO Whether Reportable:
YES / NO