Rampal And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA-2116-2016 (O&M)
Reserved on: 24.05.2022
Date of decision: 01.06.2022 RAMPAL AND ANR ..Appellants
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANILKSHETARPAL
Present:
Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sugandha Kundu, Advocate Ms. Gurpreet Randhawa, Advocate.
Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate Mr. Atul Yadav, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate Mr. Kapil Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the landowners.
Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate Mr. Shivoy Dhir, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for Union of India.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1.
BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 1.1 Two batches of appeals (details whereof are on the foot of the judgment), filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
-2- (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), with a prayer to modify the awards passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC') on 15.01.2016 as well as 15.03.2016, arising from common notifications under Section 4, 6 of the 1894 Act, shall stand disposed of. The acquisition has been made for establishing National Defence University in villages Binola and Bilaspur (contiguous villages) in Teshil Manesar, District Gurugram. 1.2 The learned counsel representing the parties are not only common but also ad idem that these appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.
1.3 The relevant particulars of the case are as under:- Sr.
No.
Title Details 1.
Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued proposing to acquire land for National Defence University.
21.01.2011 2.
Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was published.
12.01.2012 3.
Vide Awards No.13 and 14, The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.52,00,000/- per acre while observing that 25% extra per acre shall be payable for the land abutting National Highway No.8 upto the depth of 2 acre of village Binola which comes to Rs.65,00,000/- per acre shall be paid.
08.09.2012 4.
Extent of land acquired In Village Binola:- 162 acres, 2 kanals and 4 marlas, In village Bilaspur:- 42 acres 6 kanals and 11 marlas.
5.
While deciding 18 reference petitions, the RC assessed the 15.01.2016
-3market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.73,64,787/- with respect to village Bilaspur.
6.
With respect to the acquired land in village Binola, the RC relying upon the judgment dated 15.01.2016, assessed the same market value i.e.
Rs.73,64,787/-.
15.03.2016 1.4 The landowners claim that the acquired land is not less than Rs.10 Crore per acre. It is claimed that the acquired land is located near the factory of Hero Honda and Ansal Industrial Park. Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway is hardly 5 kms away from the acquired land. There are four engineering colleges in the nearby area. On the other hand, Union of India claim that the assessment has been correctly made by a Committee consisting of senior officers and the market value of the acquired land is not more than what has been awarded.
2.
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE BINOLA 2.1 ORAL EVIDENCE:- 2.1.1 In the cases arising from village Binola, the landowners have examined the following witnesses:- 1.
PW-1 Sh. Babu Lal, Patwari 2.
PW-2 Sh. Subhash Chand, Patwari, 3.
PW-3 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Registration Clerk 4.
PW-4 Sh. Rameshwar 5.
PW-5 Sh. Bishan Kumar, Clerk from Excise and Taxation Department 6.
PW-7 Sh. Amit Bhandari, Director of
-4M/s Auto Mac Pvt. Ltd.
7.
PW-8 Sh. Inder, Patwari 8.
PW-9 Sh. Lalit Kumar, Photographer 9.
PW-10 Sh. Ashok Kumar, one of the landowner 2.1.2 On the other hand, the respondents examined the following witnesses:- RW-1 Sh. Rattan Singh, SDO-II, Defence State Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt.
2.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
2.2.1 The landowners in order to prove their case, produced the following evidence apart from the sale deeds, table of which is compiled in para 3.2.2 of the judgment:- Sr. No.
Exhibit Particular 1.
Ex.P-1 Revenue layout plan of village Binola 2.
Ex.P-2 Revenue layout plant of village Bilaspur 3.
Ex.PW5/A Form VAT-GI 4.
Ex.PW6/1 Report of architect, engineer and valuer 5.
Ex.P6/2 Plan of existing building 6.
Ex.P8 Final development plan for control areas of GurgaonManesar Urban Complex, 2021 7.
Ex.P9 Final development plan for control areas of GurgaonManesar Urban Complex, 2025 8.
Ex.P-10 Final development plan for control areas of GurgaonManesar Urban Complex, 2031 AD 9.
Ex.P9 Final development plan for control areas of Pataudi and
-5Haily Mandi, 2031 10.
Ex.PW8/A Statement prepared by LAC 11.
Ex.PW8/B Statement prepared by LAC 12.
Ex.PW9/1 to Ex.PW9/34 Photographs 13.
Ex.P10/B and Ex.P10/C Part of the revenue layout plan 14.
Ex.P12 Information received under Right to Information Act, 2005 2.2.2 On the other hand, the Union of India has produced Ex.R-2 (proceedings of the meeting of Divisional level Committee held on 02.02.2012) and Ex.R-3 (the award passed by the RC on 15.01.2016, while deciding the cases of village Bilaspur acquired by same notification). 3.
ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN VILLAGE BILASPUR 3.1 ORAL EVIDENCE:
3.1.1 In the cases arising from village Bilaspur, the landowners examined the following witnesses:- Sr. No.
Exhibit Particular 1.
Ex.PW-1 Sh. Bhupender Singh, Registration Clerk 2.
Ex.PW-2 Sh. Babu Lal, Patwari 3.
Ex.PW-3 Sh. Adarsh Kumar, one of the landowner.
3.1.2 Whereas, on the other hand, respondents examined Sh. Rattan Singh, SDO-II, Office of Defence State Officer, Delhi Circle, Delhi Cantt. 3.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:
3.2.1 The landowners in order to prove their case, produced the
-6following evidence apart from the sale deeds, table of which is compiled in para 3.2.2 of the judgment:- Ex.P-5 (revenue layout plan).
On the other hand, the Union of India has produced the revenue layout plan and the sale deeds details whereof are given in the separate table, produced in para 3.2.2 of the judgment.
3.2.2 VILLAGE BILASPUR Sr.
No.
Exhibit Nos.
Sale Deed No.
Date Total Area Land Calculated in Marlas Price consideration Price Per Acre Village 1.
P-3 07.01.2011 5A-3K-9M 80000000 14729574 Bilaspur 2.
P-4 05.08.2011 4A-2K0.39M 680.39 59000000 13874395 Bilaspur 3.
R-3 09.06.2010 6K 3000000 4000000 Bilaspur 4.
R-4 14.06.2010 1A-5K-10M 6750000 4000000 Bilaspur 5.
R-5 17.06.2010 3A-3K-7M 13675000 4000000 Bilaspur 6.
R-6 25.06.2010 6K-10M 3643000 4483692 Bilaspur 7.
R-7 06.10.2010 1A-1K12.5M 192.5 4894450 4068114 Bilaspur 8.
R-8 16.11.2010 1A-5K-10M 7087500 4200000 Bilaspur 9.
R-9 16.11.2010 1A-5K-10M 7087500 4200000 Bilaspur 10.
R-10 24.11.2010 6K-15M 4218750 5000000 Bilaspur 11.
R-11 30.11.2010 1A-4K-1M 7500000 4979253 Bilaspur 12.
R-12 02.12.2010 1A-6K-12M 7665000 4200000 Bilaspur 13.
R-13 06.12.2010 2A-2K-7M 9633750 4200000 Bilaspur 14.
R-14 06.12.2010 4K-10M 3000000 5333333 Bilaspur 15.
R-15 15.12.2010 2A-3K-9M 12156250 5000000 Bilaspur 16.
R-16 01.03.2011 4K-19M 2600000 4202020 Bilaspur 17.
R-17 01.03.2011 5K 2625000 4200000 Bilaspur 18.
R-18 01.03.2011 1A-3K0.3M 220.3 6181250 4489332 Bilaspur 19.
R-19 01.03.2011 7K-6.8M 146.8 4131250 4502724 Bilaspur 20.
R-20 01.03.2011 6K-14.2M 134.2 3774500 4500149 Bilaspur
-7VILLAGE BINOLA Sr.
No.
Exhibit Nos.
Sale Deed No.
Date Area Land Calculated in Marlas Price consideration Price Per Acre Village 1.
P-1 P-6 P-7 03.08.2007 8A-7K-2M 190000000 21378340 Binola 2.
P-2 31.03.2011 15A-6K12M 89000000 5624012 Binola 3.
P-3 26.07.2010 Sq.Yards - 8,00,000 1,84,38,095 Binola 4.
P-4 21.10.2010 Sq.Yards - 70,000 1,12,93,333 Binola 5.
P-5 12.11.2010 7 M 5,00,000 1,14,28,571 Binola 6.
P-6 10.02.2011 Sq.Yards - 6,26,500 1,11,48,014 Binola 7.
R-4 27.07.2010 2A-6K13M 1,13,25,000 40,00,000 Binola 8.
R-5 03.09.2010 2A 80,00,000 40,00,000 Binola 9.
R-6 04.06.2010 1A-1K10M 53,00,000 44,63,157 Binola 10.
R-7 30.07.2010 1A-2K-7M 51,75,000 40,00,000 Binola 11.
R-8 27.07.2010 1A-6K13M 73,25,000 40,00,000 Binola 12.
R-9 27.07.2010 2A-6K13M 1,13,25,000 40,00,000 Binola 13.
R-10 27.07.2010 9A 3,60,00,000 40,00,000 Binola 14.
R-11 27.07.2010 9A 3,60,00,000 40,00,000 Binola 4.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE AWARD MADE BY THE REFERENCE COURT IN BOTH THE VILLAGES:
4.1 While firstly deciding the cases arising from village Bilaspur, the RC has recorded the following reasons:-
1. There is no reason to award separate amount for the acquired land abutting National Highway.
2. The sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana cannot be taken into consideration being of lesser price
-8than the amount awarded by the LAC in view of Section 25 of the 1894 Act.
3. Sale Deed No.1641 dated 06.12.2010 (Ex.R-14), but the difference between the area sold and the acquisition is very huge.
4. Sale Deed No.1981 dated 07.01.2011 (Ex.P-3), with respect to the 43 kanals and 9 marlas land sold at the rate of Rs.1,47,29,574/- is comparable.
5. The RC after applying deduction of the 50% towards difference in the area of the acquired land and the exemplar sale deed assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.73,64,787/- per acre.
6. There is no evidence of damages suffered by the landowners on account of severance of the unacquired or remaining land.
4.2 While deciding the cases of village Binola, apart from the reasons recorded by the RC while deciding the cases of village Bilaspur, the RC has held that all the exemplar sale deeds produced by both the parties are not comparable. Thereafter, the RC relied upon its previous award dated 15.01.2016 to assess the same market value, as decided in that award. 4.3 The RC has not recorded any reason whatsoever while observing that there is no such reason for the separate assessment of the market value of the land abutting National Highway No.8 i.e. Delhi-Jaipur Highway. Without any evidence, the RC has observed the same. The RC has also not given any reason before returning the aforesaid findings. Similarly,
-9the RC has committed an error in wrongly interpreting Section 25 of the 1894 Act, which is extracted as under:- "25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. - The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11."
4.3 It has evident from the careful reading of the provision that Section 25 of the 1894 Act, only debars the Court from awarding the market value less than the amount assessed by the LAC. There is no prohibition for the Court to take into consideration, the sale deeds produced by the parties which reflect a price lower than the amount assessed by the LAC. This matter is no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India, 2009(15) SCC 769. The RC has also erred in discarding the sale exemplar Ex.R-14 i.e. Sale Deed No. 1641, dated 06.12.2010, through which 4 kanals and 10 marlas land was sold at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. It may be noted here that the RC without applying its mind has stated that the gap between the area of land sold through the sale deed and the area of acquired land is huge.
Similarly, the RC has erred in relying upon the sale exemplar vide Sale Deed No.1981, dated 07.01.2011, with respect to the sale of 43 kanals and 9 marlas, land located in village Binola, sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.8 Crores, at the rate of Rs.1,47,29,574/- per acre. The RC has overlooked that this parcel of land is located on the other side/across the National Highway No.8.
-10acquired land but also located near the acquired land. 5.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PARTIES:
5.1 This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paperbook of both the lead cases in two different batches as well as the record which was requisitioned. 5.2 The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the land is situated near the Industrial Area, Manesar, and is abutting National Highway No.8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway). They further contend that the RC has committed an error while applying 50% deduction on account of dissimilarity in the parcel of land sold in the sale deed exemplars and the acquired land. They contend that the Sale Deed No.1981 is with respect to more than 5 acres of land, which is sufficiently a big parcel of land and, consequently, 50% deduction was not correct. Per contra, Union of India also filed appeals claiming that the assessment made by the RC is excessive. 6.
DISCUSSION BY THIS COURT:
6.1 Before proceeding further, it is important to take note of the location of the acquired land. Some part of the acquired land located in village Binola is abutting the National Highway No.8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway). It has been noticed from the careful perusal of the layout plan produced by the respective parties, that approximately 5 acres of the acquired land is located on the National Highway. It may further be significant to note that the acquired land of village Bilaspur is not located on the National Highway. In fact, the acquired land of village Bilaspur is located behind the acquired land of village Binola. The landowners have
-11tried to project that Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway is 5kms away from the acquired land. It may be noted here that at that time Kundli-ManesarPalwal Expressway which is also known as Western Peripheral Expressway was not developed although idea of its development was in the pipeline. Hence, the reliance placed on the aforesaid fact by the landowners is wrong. 6.2 Moreover, it is significant to note that the acquired land in village Binola consists of land comprised in Rectangle No.25, 26, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49 and 50. Whereas, the acquired land of village Bilaspur is located in Rectangle No.4, 9, 10, 11 and 20. At this stage, it is important to explain the expression "rectangle" in the context of the size of the land. 6.
3 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.) 6.
-12Binola, it is evident that the State has produced a Sale Deed exemplar No.709, dated 30.07.2010, evidencing sale of land, measuring 10 kanals 7 marlas, at the rate of Rs.51,75,000/-. This is approximately five months prior to the date of notification under Section 4. This parcel of the land comprises of Rectangle No.26, Khasra Nos.3 and 4. This land is not only located on the National Highway No.8 (Delhi-Jaipur Highway) but is located hardly 3 acres away from the acquired land on the same side of National Highway as the acquired land. The land comprised in Rectangle No.26, Khasra No.4/1/2, is at a distance of 3 acres from the land comprised in Rectangle No.26, Khasra Nos.23 and 24. In other words, a part of the acquired land as well as the land sold vide Sale Deed No.709, are from the land comprised in same rectangle i.e. 26.
6.5 Furthermore, the Union of India has produced sale exemplars showing purchase of land comprised in Rectangle No.14, 15, 16, 17 through the various sale exemplars. This parcel of land is also located on the same side of the National Highway as is the acquired land and is at distance of 6-7 acres from the acquired land.
6.6 This Bench now proceeds to examine the Sale Deed No.1981, dated 07.01.2011, relied upon by the Court which is Ex.P-3. This parcel of land is located on the other side of the National Highway. A major chunk of the aforesaid land is located on the National Highway itself. Furthermore, the Sale Deed No.1981, has been sold by the Premium Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. through Sh. Pawan Sachdeva. Smt. Sangeeta Sachdeva, wife of Sh. Pawan Sachdeva, has sold another parcel of land measuring 33 kanal 19 marlas 6 sarsai vide Sale Deed No.1726, on 05.08.2011, at a much lesser
-13rate. This parcel of land is located behind the land sold by the Premium Automobile Industries. The purchaser in both the sale deeds is Mitsuba Sical India Ltd.
6.7 Once, the sale exemplar of the land located in the same rectangle is available, the RC committed an error in relying upon the sale exemplar with regard to the parcel of the land which is located across the National Highway. The RC has also overlooked that the sale deed Ex.P-3 is just 15 days before the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. When two corporate entities had entered into a contract of sale and, consequently, the parcel of land is not likely to have been purchased for the purpose of agriculture.
6.8 Similarly, on a careful perusal of the layout plan of village Bilaspur, it is evident that the State of Haryana produced various sale exemplars to prove that the price of the nearby land was in the range of Rs.40 to 50 lacs per acre. It has been noticed that the acquired land of village Bilaspur is from Rectangle No.4, 9, 10, 11 and 20. whereas, the various sale exemplars of the land comprised in Rectangles No.59, 60, 61 and 62 have been produced. These parcels of land are located nearby the acquired land. The land comprised in Rectangle No.42 starts at a distance of 8 acres from the acquired land. Similarly, the land comprised in Rectangle No.43, is also at a distance of 10 acres only from the acquired land. 6.9 Hence, the RC has committed an error in placing reliance on the award with respect to village Bilaspur.
6.10 This Bench now proceeds to examine the contentions of the learned counsel representing the appellants.
-146.11 The first argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is though convincing and solid, but in absence of the sufficient corroborative evidence, the Court cannot assess the market value merely on the basis that the acquired land is not only located in Tehsil Manesar but also located on the Delhi-Jaipur Highway.
6.12 The next argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is with respect to 50% development cut applied by the RC, which is erroneous. However, this Court has reassessed the market value of the acquired land. This Court, on appreciation of evidence, have chosen not to rely upon the aforesaid sale deed exemplar, hence, the argument remains academic.
6.13 Now, the question that arises for adjudication is that what should be the appropriate market value of the acquired land. 6.14 As already noticed, there are various sale instances produced by the Union of India to prove that the market value of the acquired land was not more than Rs.52,00,000/- per acre. The LAC while assessing the market value has held that the landowners of the land located on the belt of 2 acres, abutting the National Highway located in village Binola shall be entitled to Rs.65,00,000/- per acre. If we compare this price with the sale exemplar of the land located 3 acres from the acquired land, it is evident that the land has been sold vide Sale Deed No.709 dated 30.07.2010, at the rate of Rs.40,00,000/-.
6.15 Furthermore, as already noticed with respect to the acquired land located in village Bilaspur, the various sale deed exemplars of the land located in Rectangle Nos.42, 43 and 60, which are located nearby have been
-15produced, are preferable to assess the market value of the acquired land. 7.
DECISION 7.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the appeals filed by Union of India are allowed, whereas, the appeals filed by the landowners stand dismissed. While setting aside the judgment passed by the RC, the amount assessed by the LAC is found more appropriate and therefore, maintained. 7.2 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
01st June, 2022 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) Ay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr.
No.
Case No.
Appellants Respondents 1.
RFA No.2116 of Rampal and another State of Haryana & others
2. 1 RFA No.2638 of Brahmanand (deceased) through his LRs & others State of Haryana & others 3.
RFA No.2639 of Brahmanand (deceased) through his LRs & others State of Haryana & others 4.
RFA No. 2878 of Satbir Singh State of Haryana & others 5.
RFA No. 2875 of Rameshwar and others State of Haryana & others 6.
RFA No. 2877 of Ashok Kumar and others State of Haryana & others 7.
RFA No. 2901 of Inderjeet State of Haryana & others 8.
RFA No. 4480 of Government of India and another Adarsh and others 9.
RFA No. 3092 of Smt. Tarawati State of Haryana
-16- & others 10.
RFA No. 3663 of Pyare Lal & others State of Haryana & others 11.
RFA No. 3664 of Balwant and another State of Haryana & others 12.
RFA No. 3665 of Jaipal and others State of Haryana & others 13.
RFA No. 3666 of Karan Singh State of Haryana & others 14.
RFA No. 3667 of Smt. Birmati and another State of Haryana & others 15.
RFA No. 3668 of Jagdev and others State of Haryana & others 16.
RFA No. 3669 of Sanjeet and another State of Haryana & others 17.
RFA No. 3670 of Balwan Singh and another State of Haryana & others 18.
RFA No. 4324 of Ishwar and others State of Haryana & others 19.
RFA No. 572 of Raje Ram @ Raja Ram @ Jage Ram State of Haryana & others 20.
RFA No. 4225 of Government of India and another Rameshwar and others 21.
RFA No. 4101 of Joint Secretary (Training) & another Rampal and others 22.
RFA No. 4323 of Government of India and another Karan Singh and others 23.
RFA No. 4474 of Government of India and another Jagdev and others 24.
RFA No. 4475 of Government of India and another Balwan Singh and others 25.
RFA No. 4476 of Government of India and another Balwant and others 26.
RFA No. 4477 of Government of India and another Jaipal and others 27.
RFA No. 4478 of Government of India and another Sanjeet and others 28.
RFA No. 4479 of Government of India and another Smt. Birmati and others 29.
RFA No. 4658 of 2017 (O&M Joint Secretary (Training) and another Brahmanand (deceased)
-17through his LRs & others 30.
RFA No. 4730 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Raje Ram @ Raja Ram @ Jage Ram and others 31.
RFA No. 4770 of Government of India and another Pappu and others 32.
RFA No. 4958 of 2017 (O&M Government of India and another Pyare Lal and others 33.
RFA No. 4375 of Government of India and another Ashok Kumar and others 34.
RFA No. 4379 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Daya Ram and others 35.
RFA No. 4380 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Smt. Kanta Devi and others 36.
RFA No. 4381 of Government of India and another Rameshwar and others 37.
RFA No. 4384 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Smt. Rekha and others 38.
RFA No. 5122 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Raje Ram @ Raja Ram @ Jage Ram and others 39.
RFA No. 3004 of M/s T.S. Automach Pvt.
Ltd.
State of Haryana & others 40.
RFA No. 4390 of Adarsh Kumar and others State of Haryana & others 41.
RFA No. 4957 of 2017 (O&M Government of India and another Ishwar and others 42.
RFA No. 4378 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Suresh Kumar Mehta and others 43.
RFA No. 4298 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Sanjay Razdan and others 44.
RFA No. 4306 of Union of India P.K.Sharma and others 45.
RFA No. 4382 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Manoj Kumar Trehan and others 46.
XOBJR No. 84 in RFA No. 4383 of Joint Secretary and another Manoj Kumar and others 47.
RFA No. 4383 of Joint Secretary and another Manoj Kumar and others 48.
RFA No. 4501 of Ministry of Defence and M/s NCJ Estate
-18others Solutions Pvt.
Ltd. & others 49.
RFA No. 5123 of Government of India and another Surajbhan and others 50.
RFA No. 4503 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Brahmanand (deceased) through his LRs and others 51.
RFA No. 3093 of Kanta Devi and others State of Haryana & others 52.
RFA No. 3094 of Smt. Rekha and another State of Haryana & others 53.
RFA No. 3095 of Hanuman State of Haryana & others 54.
RFA No. 3096 of Dharmender Kumar Tayal and another State of Haryana & others 55.
RFA No. 3733 of Pyare Lal and another State of Haryana & others 56.
RFA No. 3734 of M/s Vibrant Resorts & Enterainment Pvt. Ltd.
State of Haryana & others 57.
RFA No. 3750 of Ratan Singh and others State of Haryana & others 58.
RFA No. 3751 of Ratan Singh and others State of Haryana & others 59.
RFA No. 3752 of Daya Ram and another State of Haryana & others 60.
RFA No. 3753 of Bala Ram since deceased through his LRs and others State of Haryana & others 61.
RFA No. 3754 of Bala Ram since deceased through his LRs and others State of Haryana & others 62.
RFA No. 3788 of Jasbir State of Haryana & others 63.
XOBJR No. 19-C12018 in RFA No.
Government of India and another Smt.Bimla Yadav and others 64.
RFA No. 4325 of Government of India and another Smt.Bimla Yadav and others 65.
RFA No. 4763 of M/s Passion Realtech Private Limited State of Haryana & others 66.
RFA No. 111 of 2017 Ishwar and others State of Haryana & others
-1967.
RFA No. 816 of 2017 Suresh Kumar Mehta and another State of Haryana & others 68.
RFA No. 2511 of Pradeep Krishna Chaturvedi State of Haryana & others 69.
RFA No. 573 of 2018 Raje Ram alias Raja Ram alias Jage Ram State of Haryana & others 70.
RFA No. 699 of 2018 Mrs Mamta Gupta State of Haryana & others 71.
RFA No. 1899 of Dinesh State of Haryana & others 72.
RFA No. 4046 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Smt. Tarawati and others 73.
RFA No. 4158 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Mrs. Mamta Gupta and others 74.
RFA No. 4159 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Bala Ram (deceased) through his LRs and others 75.
RFA No. 4190 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Sh. Pradeep Krishna Chaturvedi and others 76.
XOBJR No. 16-C12018 in RFA No.
Government of India and another Smt. Premwati and others 77.
RFA No. 4191 of Government of India and another Smt. Premwati and others 78.
RFA No. 4224 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Sanjeev Kumar and others 79.
RFA No. 4294 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Inderjeet and others 80.
RFA No. 4299 of Government of India and another M/s Passion Real Tech Pvt. Ltd.
and others 81.
RFA No. 4300 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Bala Ram (deceased) through LRs 82.
RFA No. 4301 of Government of India and another Satbir Singh and others 83.
RFA No. 4302 of Government of India and another M/s Vibrant Resorts and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd and
-20others 84.
RFA No. 4303 of Government of India and another Pyare Lal and others 85.
RFA No. 4304 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Rattan Singh and others 86.
RFA No. 4305 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another M/s T.S.
Automach Pvt.
Limited & others 87.
RFA No. 4322 of Government of India and another Ishwar and others 88.
XOBJR No. 19-C12018 RFA No. 4325 of 2017 Government of India and another Smt. Bimla Yadav and others 89.
RFA No. 4325 of Government of India and another Smt. Bimla Yadav and others 90.
RFA No. 4326 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Dharmender Kumar Tayal and others 91.
RFA No. 4327 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Dinesh and others 92.
XOBJR No.3-C12018 in RFA No.
Joint Secretary (Training) and another Suman Raheja and others 93.
RFA No. 4328 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Suman Raheja and others 94.
RFA No. 4329 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Hanuman and others 95.
RFA No. 4330 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Jagbir and others 96.
RFA No. 4331 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Rattan Singh & others 97.
RFA No. 4341 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Bala Ram (Since Deceased) through LRs and others 98.
RFA No. 4374 of Joint Secretary (Training) and another Inderjeet & others 99.
RFA No. 4473 of Government of India and another Dharmender and others
100. RFA No. 1440 of Rameshwar & others Anuradha & others
101. XOBJR No.17-C12018 in RFA No.
Government of India and another Sunita Saini and others
-21102. RFA No. 4439 of Government of India and another Sunita Saini and others (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE