(O&M) Narender Kumar & ORS. v. State Of Haryana & ORS.

-1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Regular First Appeal No. 5916 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.3.2015.

Narender Kumar and others .......Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. C.S.Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate Mr. Sunil K. Rana, Advocate for Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate, for the land owners.

Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana with Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana.

****

-2SABINA, J.

Vide this judgment, above mentioned appeal as well as following appeals filed by the claimants and State and cross objections would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same award dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Reference Court:- Appeals filed by the State 1.

RFA No. 181 of 2012 2.

RFA No. 182 of 2012 3.

RFA No. 183 of 2012 4.

RFA No. 184 of 2012 5.

RFA No. 185 of 2012 6.

RFA No. 186 of 2012 7.

RFA No. 187 of 2012 8.

RFA No. 188 of 2012 9.

RFA No. 189 of 2012 10.

RFA No. 190 of 2012 11.

RFA No. 191 of 2012 12.

RFA No. 192 of 2012 13.

RFA No. 193 of 2012 14.

RFA No. 194 of 2012 15.

RFA No. 195 of 2012 16.

RFA No. 196 of 2012 17.

RFA No. 197 of 2012 18.

RFA No. 198 of 2012 19.

RFA No. 199 of 2012 20.

RFA No. 200 of 2012 21.

RFA No. 201 of 2012 22.

RFA No. 202 of 2012 23.

RFA No. 203 of 2012

-324.

RFA No. 571 of 2012 25.

RFA No. 572 of 2012 26.

RFA No. 573 of 2012 27.

RFA No. 574 of 2012 28.

RFA No. 575 of 2012 29.

RFA No. 576 of 2012 30.

RFA No. 577 of 2012 31.

RFA No. 578 of 2012 32.

RFA No. 579 of 2012 33.

RFA No. 580 of 2012 34.

RFA No. 581 of 2012 35.

RFA No. 582 of 2012 36.

RFA No. 583 of 2012 37.

RFA No. 584 of 2012 38.

RFA No. 585 of 2012 39.

RFA No. 586 of 2012 Appeals filed by the claimants 1.

RFA No. 272 of 2012 2.

RFA No. 876 of 2012 3.

RFA No. 5917 of 2011 4.

RFA No. 5918 of 2011 5.

RFA No. 5919 of 2011 6.

RFA No. 6059 of 2011 7.

RFA No. 6060 of 2011 8.

RFA No. 6134 of 2011 9.

RFA No. 6168 of 2011 10.

RFA No. 6169 of 2011 11.

RFA No. 6177 of 2011 12.

RFA No. 6178 of 2011

-413.

RFA No. 6769 of 2011 14.

RFA No. 6770 of 2011 15.

RFA No. 6771 of 2011 16.

RFA No. 6772 of 2011 17.

RFA No. 6773 of 2011 18.

RFA No. 6774 of 2011 19.

RFA No. 6885 of 2011 20.

RFA No. 6897 of 2011 21.

RFA No. 6900 of 2011 22.

RFA No. 6901 of 2011 23.

RFA No. 6907 of 2011 24.

RFA No. 7131 of 2011 25.

RFA No. 7444 of 2011 26.

RFA No. 7445 of 2011 27.

RFA No. 7650 of 2011 28.

RFA No. 7690 of 2011 29.

RFA No. 7904 of 2011 Cross objections Nos.

1.

25-CI of 2012 in RFA No. 196 of 2012 2.

29-CI of 2014 in RFA No. 199 of 2012 3.

30-CI of 2014 in RFA No. 586 of 2012 Learned senior counsel for the land owners has submitted that these appeals are covered by the decision given by this Court in RFA No. 5626 of 2010 decided on 26.3.2014 and as modified by the Apex Court in appeal vide order dated 22.8.2014. Learned Advocate General has not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners. In the present case, land in question was acquired for commercial and residential Sectors 3, 5, 1 and 4 at Hisar by

-5Haryana Urban Development Authority. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), was issued on 19.5.2003. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 11.5.2004.

Land measuring 313.67 acres was earlier also sought to be acquired for commercial and residential sectors 3 and 5 vide notification dated 13.11.2002 under Section 4 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation at the rate of ` 6,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 8.11.2005. Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of ` 670/- per square yard. This Court while deciding RFA No. 5626 of 2010 and other connecting appeals, while relying on decision of the Apex Court in 'Ahsarfi and others versus State of Haryana and others', enhanced the amount of compensation by giving 12% increase per year for the intervening period of the notification in Asharfi's case (supra) and the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 13.11.2002.

This Court while disposing of RFA No. 5626 of 2010 on 26.3.2014 has held as under:- "Thus, the claimants are entitled to receive market value of the land as assessed by the Apex Court at the rate of ` 325/- per square yard + 12% increase per year for 10 years and 3 months. The amount of enhancement works out to ` 325 x 12% x 101⁄4 years = ` 399.75 paisa. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ` 325 + ` 399.75 paisa = ` 724.75 paisa.

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State are

-6dismissed whereas the appeals and cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed. Claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ` 724.75 paisa per square yard."

The said order was modified by the Apex Court vide order dated 22.8.2014 in appeal and it was held as under:- "From the impugned judgment of the High Court, it transpires that the High Court has followed the judgment of this Court in Asharfi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2013(5) SCC 527 and has given increase at the rate of 12%. This was the demand of the petitioners herein which has been accepted following the ratio in Asharfi case (supra). To the extent there is no quarrel. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Asharfi case (supra), yearly increase of 12% was granted cumulatively and not at flat rate. This position as contained in Asharfi case (supra) could not be disputed by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned senior counsel for the State.

Accordingly, the order of the High Court is modified to the extent that the 12% increase granted by the High Court shall be worked out on cumulative basis." In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.5.2003 whereas in Asharfi's case (supra), the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.8.1992. Thus, the time period that has elapsed between both the notifications is 10 years and 09 months In view of the decision given by this Court in RFA No. 5626 of 2010 decided on 26.3.

-7Apex Court vide order dated 22.8.2014, the claimants are entitled to receive the market value of the land in question as under:- Time period Calculation Cumulation interest (per year) (In Rs.) 20.8.1992 -19.08.1993 325 x 12/100 20.8.1993 -19.08.1994 364 x 12/100 43.68 20.8.1994 -19.08.1995 407.68 x 12/100 48.92 20.8.1995 -19.08.1996 456.60 x 12/100 54.79 20.8.1996 -19.08.1997 511.39 x 12/100 61.36 20.8.1997 -19.08.1998 572.75 x 12/100 68.73 20.8.1998 -19.08.1999 641.48 x 12/100 76.97 20.8.1999 -19.08.2000 718.45 x 12/100 86.21 20.8.2000 -19.08.2001 804.66 x 12/100 96.55 20.8.2001-19.08.2002 901.21 x 12/100 108.15 20.8.2002 -19.05.2003 1009.35 x 12/100 x 9/12 90.84 Market Value as on 19.5.2003 1100.19 The above calculation has not been disputed by the learned senior counsel for the land owners as well as the learned State counsel.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the claimants/land owners are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of ` 1100.19 paisa per square yard. It is needless to say that the land owners would be entitled to other statutory benefits in terms of the order passed by the Reference Court.

All the appeals as well as cross objections stand disposed of accordingly.

(SABINA) JUDGE March 19, 2015 Gurpreet