Balwan & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 27.10.2021 Balwan and Others ... Appellant(s)

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-4537 to 4557, 4835 to 4847, 4851 and 7852 of 2016, RFA-10 to 15, 17 to 23, 28 to 42 and 730 of 2017, RFA-2685, 3594 and 5049 of 2018).

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gursher Bhandal, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-4825-2016).

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pritam Singh Saini and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Advocates for the HSIIDC.

Mr. M.S.Rana, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for respondent No.7, Mr. Robin Singh Hooda, Advocate.

Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate.

Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate.

Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate.

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Ms. Vibha Tiwari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

Through this batch of appeals, detail whereof is on the foot of the judgment, the owners assail the correctness of the common award dated 26.05.2016 passed by the Reference Court while deciding the various reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act"). The learned counsels representing the parties are ad idem that these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2.

The details of the acquisition are as under:- Date of Notification U/s 4 13.2.2008 Total Extent acquired 713 Acre 2 Kanal 5 Marla located in the village Baliyana Purpose of acquisition Setting up of Industrial Model Township, Rohtak.

Collector's Award Rs.16,00,000/- per acre 3.

FACTS 3.1 At the outset, it is pertinent to note that this Court, vide a judgment dated 01.09.2021 in "Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation v. Kulbir and Others" (Regular First Appeal No. 4163 of 2017 along with the other connected appeals), has already decided a previous batch of the appeals with regard to the acquisition of the land in the same village Baliyana initiated vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 09.06.2006. The award passed by the Reference Court, assessing the market value of the acquired land as on 09.06.2006 @ 17,00,000/- per acre, was upheld.

₹

3.2 In this batch of appeals, the Haryana Government, as already noticed, had issued the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 13.02.2008 for utilizing the land for setting up the Industrial Model Township, Rohtak. The Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the LAC") vide an award No.3 dated 06.07.2009 had assessed and offered the market value of the acquired land @ 16,00,000/- per acre for all ₹ kinds of the land along with all the statutory benefits. 3.3 The landowners, who stood deprived of their land due to its compulsory acquisition, applied to the Collector for forwarding references to the Reference Court. The Reference Court consolidated all the references arising from the land acquired through a common notification. During the pendency of the reference applications, M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited was also impleaded as a party (respondent).

3.4 The Reference Court, on appreciation of the pleadings, framed the following issues:

"1.

What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP 2.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount of enhanced compensation, as alleged, if so to what extent? OPP 3.

Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4.

Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition? OPD 5.

Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties? OPR 6.

Relief".

3.5 The landowners, in order to prove their case, examined the various landowners namely Shishpal, Rekha and Kamlesh as PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4, respectively. Sh.Ram Dhan, a retired Kanungo, was examined as PW.2. The landowners, apart from the oral evidence, produced the following documents in evidence:

Ex.P1 Sale Deed No. 33 dated 6.4.2007 Ex.P2 Sale Deed No. 682 dated 26.6.2006 Ex.P3 Sale Deed No. 2147 dated 6.10.2009 Ex.P4 Sale Deed No. 710 dated 1.7.2010 Ex.P5 Copy of Award No. 3 dated 6.7.2009 Ex.P6 Copy of Award No. 4 dated 13.7.2009 Ex.P7 Sale Deed No. 5626 dated 27.9.2006 Ex.P8 Sale Deed No. 3088 dated 3.7.2006 Ex.P9 Sale Deed No. 2389 dated 12.4.2006 Ex.P10 Sale Deed No. 5095 dated 7.9.2006 Ex.P11 Sale Deed No. 14133 dated 13.3.2006 Ex.P12 Sale Deed No. 3089 dated 3.7.2006 Ex.P13 Sale Deed No. 3090 dated 3.7.2006 Ex.P14 Aks-Shizra Ex.P15 Copy of Award No. 3 of 6.7.2009

Ex.P16 Notice under Section 9 of the Act Ex.P17 Copy of Mutation No. 5315 Ex.P18 Copy of Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004 Ex.P19 Notice under Section 9 of the Act Ex.P20 Copy of Mutation No. 5316 Ex.P21 Copy of Mutation No. 5315 3.6 The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") examined Krishan Kumar, Patwari, as RW.1. M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited examined Surinder Kumar as RW.2. The respondents produced and proved the following documents in their evidence:- Ex.R1 Authority Letter issued by Dy.Gen.Manager, IMT, Rohtak in favour of Krishan, Patwari Ex.R2 Sale Deed No. 170 dated 23.4.2007 Ex.R3 Sale Deed No. 2019 dated 18.1.2008 Ex.R4 Sale Deed No. 2371 dated 17.3.2008 Ex.R5 Supplementary Award No. 8 of 4.2.2011 Ex.R6 Supplementary Award No. 8A of 11.4.2012 Ex.R7 Notification No. 5451-R-V-2007/13258 dated 7.12.2007 Ex.R8 Copy of Award No. 3 of 6.7.2009 Ex.R9 Statement No. 19 Ex.R10 Village and Skill Development Scheme for villagers, whose land has been acquired

Ex.R2/1 Power of Attorney in favour of Surender Kumar to appear on behalf of respondent No.4 Ex.R2/2 Sale Deed No. 1236 dated 24.6.2007 Ex.R2/3 Sale Deed No. 1245 dated 24.8.2007 Ex.R2/4 Sale Deed No. 1319 dated 31.8.2007 Ex.R2/5 Sale Deed No. 1201 dated 17.8.2007 Ex.R2/6 Sale Deed No. 70 dated 11.4.2008 Ex.R2/7 Sale Deed No. 1956 dated 31.12.2007 Ex.R2/8 Sale Deed No. 160 dated 2.5.2008 Ex.R2/9 Sale Deed No. 1955 dated 31.12.2007 Ex.R2/10 Aks-Shizra Ex.R2/11 Regular Letter of Allotment Ex.R2/12 Conveyance Deed 3.7 The Reference Court, found out that Ex.P1 (sale exemplar) is the most appropriate document to assess the market value. The Reference Court, after treating the aforesaid sale exemplar to be the base price on 06.04.

2007, hiked the market value price by giving increase of 9% per annum for a period of ten months to arrive at a figure of 21,50,000/- per ₹ acre as on 13.02.2008 and thereafter applied a development cut of 20% while assessing the market value @ 17,20,000/- per acre. ₹ 3.

requisitioned. The landowners have also filed the written arguments. 4.

ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PARTIES 4.1 The learned senior counsel appearing for the landowners contend that Ex.P1 is a sale deed produced by the landowners which prove that as on 06.04.2007, the per acre rate of the land was 20,00,000/-. He ₹ submitted that due to the industrialization in the area, the increase in the market value price was steep and that being so, the Reference Court, after hiking the price by applying an increase of at least 50%, should have assessed the market value accordingly. He further submitted that as on 09.06.2006, the Court has assessed the market value of the land in village Baliyana @ 17,00,000/- per acre which as per Ex.P1 on 06.04.2007 ₹ increased to 20,00,000/- per acre ₹ within a period of ten months, reflecting an increase @ 17.65% per annum.

He submitted that the Corporation sold the undeveloped land measuring 699.53 acres @ 75,00,000/- per acre on ₹ 13.08.2009 which represents 275% increase during the period of 27 months from 06.04.2007. He further submitted that as per the sale exemplar Ex.P3 dated 06.10.2009, 4 kanals land has been sold @ 52,00,000/- per acre ₹ which represents an increase of 110% from 13.02.2008 for a period of 20 months. The learned counsel further submitted that the Corporation itself vide a conveyance deed dated 01.07.2010 (Ex.P4) sold the plot measuring 4.86 acres @ 1,42,59,300/- per acre which represents 173% increase for a ₹ period of 9 months from 06.10.2009. He further contended that as per the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot and Others v.

SCC 432, the sale transaction representing the highest value (price consideration) should be preferred while assessing the market value. 4.2 Per contra, the learned counsel representing the Corporation contends that the Reference Court has erred in ignoring the sale exemplars produced by the Corporation as well as M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited. He submitted that the Reference Court has erred in refusing to consider the aforesaid sale exemplars on the ground that these sale exemplars show the average per acre price lower than what was assessed by the LAC. He submits that the aforesaid conclusion of the Reference Court is clearly erroneous. He relies upon the judgment passed in Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another (2009)5 SCC 769.

He further submits that a perusal of the sale deeds produced by the Corporation clearly prove that the LAC has correctly assessed the amount and therefore, the Reference Court has erred in increasing the same to 17,20,000/- per acre. ₹ 4.3 The learned senior counsel appearing for M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited has reiterated the arguments of the learned counsel representing the Corporation.

5.

ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL 5.1 Before this Court proceeds to analyse the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apt to examine the documentary evidence produced by the respective parties. The Reference Court has compiled the information with regard to the sale exemplars produced by the owners in a tabulated form, which is extracted as under:-

Sr.

No.

Ex. Vasika No.

Date Land Area Total Sale Consideration Rate Per acre Revenue Estate/ Village 1.

P1 6.4.2007 16 Kanal 40,00,000/- 20,00,000/- Baliyana 2.

P2 26.6.2006 16 Kanal 50,00,000/- 25,00,000/- Bohar 3.

P3 6.10.2009 4 Kanal 26,00,000/- 52,00,000/- Baliyana 4.

P4 1.7.2010 19662 Sq.

Meter 5,70,37,200/- 1,42,59,300/- Baliyana 5.

P7 27.9.2006 7 Kanal 9 Marla 32,12,813/- 34,50,000/- Bohar 6.

P8 3.7.2006 8 Kanal 14 Marla 38,06,250/- 35,00,000/- Bohar 7.

P9 2.4.2006 3 Kanal 8 Marla 13,60,000/- 6,80,000/- Bohar 8.

P10 5095 7.9.2006 31 Kanal 14 Marla 1,64,44,375/- 41,50,000/- Bohar 9.

P11 14133 13.3.2006 5 Kanal 20,00,000/- 32,00,000/- Bohar

10. P12 3089 3.7.2006 1 Kanal 7.5 Marla 6,01,563/- 35,64,817/- Bohar

11. P13 3090 3.7.2006 4 Kanal 17,50,000/- 35,00,000/- Bohar 5.2 On the other hand, the Corporation and M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited have produced the following sale exemplars, which is extracted as under:

S.No. Ex. No.

Dated Area Amount Village Rate Per Acre 1.

R/2 23.04.2007 29 K 58,00,000/- Baliyana 16,00,000/- 2.

R/3 24.05.2007 7K-6M 9,75,000/- Baliyana 10,00,000/- 3.

R/4 02.08.2007 6K-8M 10,00,000/- Baliyana 12,50,000/- 4.

R/2/2 24.08.2007 6K-8M 8,62,500/- Baliyana 10,00,000/- 5.

R/2/3 15.05.2007 8K 15,50,000/- Baliyana 15,50,000/- 6.

R/2/4 15.05.2007 2K-5M 2,90,000/- Baliyana 10,31,111/- 7.

R/2/5 15.05.2007 3K-18M 4,88,000/- Baliyana 10,01,025/- 8.

R/2/6 11.04.2008 5K-12M 7,70,000/- Baliyana 11,00,000/- 9.

R/2/7 31.12.2007 5K 6,25,000/- Baliyana 10,00,000/- 10.

R/2/8 15.05.2007 6K-7M 9,52,000/- Baliyana 11,99,370/- 11.

R/2/9 31.12.2007 5K 6,25,000/- Baliyana 10,00,000/- 5.3 On a careful perusal of the compiled tabulated information, it is

apparent that with respect to the land situated in village Baliyana, the landowners have produced three sale deeds. The sale deed (Ex.P3 and P4) are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. In the present case, the crucial date for assessing the market value of the acquired land is 13.02.2008. The remaining sale deeds are with respect to the land located in different villages. Thus, the only sale deed which is with respect to sale of the land located in the village before the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is Ex.P1. On a careful perusal of the record, it becomes clear that 16 kanals land which was 320/1366th share of the total land measuring 68 kanals 6 marlas had been sold for a sum of 40,00,000/-.

₹ There are certain peculiar facts which create doubt about the genuineness of the transaction for the purpose of reliance to assess the market value of the concerned land. First of all, no stamp duty has been paid as the alleged purchaser is exempted from paying the stamp duty as per the policy of the State. The Haryana State has taken a policy decision to exempt the oustees of the compulsory acquisition of the land from the payment of the stamp duty while purchasing the land in the State. The alleged purchaser is one of the oustee. He is alleged to have purchased 16 kanals of agricultural land which is an undivided share, in a joint bigger parcel of the land.

No doubt, the payment has been made through the various bank transactions and it has been recited in the sale deed that the actual physical possession of the land has been delivered to the purchaser at the time of execution of the sale deed. Yet, the land, possession whereof was delivered to the purchaser, has neither been identified through killa/khasra number nor through any other mode.

possession thereof after partition of joint land. However, if there is a recital with respect to delivery of actual physical possession of the purchased land, then it has to be with reference to the killa/khasra number or any other mode of identification to identify the land specifically from the revenue records. It is not the case of the landowners that the purchaser was delivered possession of the entire joint land although he purchased only a small portion in the joint land. Hence, the judgment in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust's case (supra) has no application.

5.4 There is yet another aspect which has come to the notice of the Court. The sale deed is scribed by Subhash Chander Sangwan, a professional scribe. The sale deeds Ex.R2, R2/2, R2/4, R2/5, R2/7, R2/8 and R2/9 are also scribed by the same scribe. In these sale deeds also, similarly undivided shares, out of joint land, have been shown to have purchased but while referring to the delivery of actual physical possession, killa/khasra numbers have not been disclosed for identifying the parcel of land possessed whereof such actual physical possession has been delivered. Once we compare the sale deeds Ex. R3, R4, R2/3 and R2/6, it is evident that even in the case of sale of an undivided part in the joint land, the delivery of possession has been recited while referring to a specific killa number. 5.

5 Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is a lurking doubt about the genuineness of the sale transaction Ex.P1 for the purpose of placing reliance to assess the market value of the acquired land. It is significant to note here that the Corporation had initiated the acquisition proceedings of more than 700 acres of land in village Baliyana vide a notification dated 09.06.2006.

sale deeds with respect to sale transactions after 09.06.2006 which prove that the prices of the unacquired land, remaining after first notification, did not increase exorbitantly as it sought to be projected by the learned counsel representing for the appellants. The landowners have not produced any evidence to prove that the aforesaid sale deeds produced by the Corporation do not reflect the correct price. The Corporation is not a party to the sale deeds which have been produced in evidence.

5.6 Now the stage is set for analyzing the arguments of the learned counsel representing the appellants. It may be noted here that the learned counsel treats the base market value at 17,00,000/- on 09.06.2007 which is ₹ infact the assessment made by the Reference Court with respect to the acquisition initiated on 09.06.2006 vide notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. This is only an assessment made by the Reference Court on preponderance of the probabilities. Thereafter, the learned counsel representing the landowners has tried to project as if the price increased from 17,00,000/- to ₹ ₹20,00,000/- per acre within a period of ten months so as to reflect the increase of 17.65% per annum by referring to the sale exemplar Ex.P1.

In the considered view of this Court, this is not the accurate way to assess the market value of the acquired land. This Court has already discussed its doubt about the genuineness of the sale exemplar Ex.P1 for assessing the market value of the acquired land. Thereafter, the learned counsel has tried to project that from 06.04.2007 the prices should increase between 55 to 100% over a period of ten months on the base market value price of 20,00,000/-.

particularly when sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period have been produced. Similarly, the learned counsel has erred in relying upon the sale of the land measuring 699.53 acres by the Corporation to M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited @ 75,00,000/- per acre. As per Section 23 and 24 of the 1894 Act, ₹ the sale deed post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act cannot be taken into consideration. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representative and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2018) 2 SCC 474. The relevant discussion is in para 5, which is extracted as under:- "5.

So far as the first contention is concerned, the sale deed relied upon by the appellants/claimants dated 27.12.1988 is post notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of the acquired land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). In Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 207, it was held that the relevant date for determining the compensation is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Gazette. In para (34), it was held as under:- "34. One of the principles in regard to determination of the market value under Section 23(1) is that the rise in market value after the publication of the notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determination of market value. If the deeming definition of "publication of the notification" in the amended Section 4(1) is imported as the meaning of the said words in the first clause of Section 23(1), it will lead to anomalous results. The owners of the lands which are the subject-matter of the notification and neighbouring lands will come to know about the proposed acquisition, on the date of publication in the Gazette or in the newspapers. If the giving of public notice of the substance of the notification is delayed by two or three months, there may be several sale transactions in regard to nearby lands in that period, showing a spurt or hike in value in view of the development contemplated on account of the acquisition itself."

Applying the ratio of the above decision, we are of the view that the post notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land".

5.7 The sale deeds Ex.P3 and P4, respectively, are post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, hence, cannot be relied upon particularly when the sale instances of contemporaneous period are available. It would be noted here that even if the sale deed Ex.R2/3 depicting highest price is taken into consideration, the price per acre as on

15.05.2007 was @ 15,50,000/- per acre approximately ₹ . Through this sale transaction, the land measuring 1 acre was sold for 15,50,000/-. This was ₹ again an undivided share, however, possession of the land comprised in rectangle No. 56 killa No.25 was specifically delivered. Moreover, the careful perusal of the sale deed Ex.R2/6 dated 11.04.2008 suggests that the market value price of the acquired land has not increased exponentially even after the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act dated 13.02.2008. This sale deed shows that the land in the village was sold @ 11,00,000/- per ₹ acre.

5.8 It is well settled that the sale deeds produced by the State or the beneficiary of the acquisition, reflecting the price lesser than what was assessed by the LAC cannot be ignored. Section 25 of the 1894 Act only debars the Reference Court from assessing the market value at a rate lesser than what was assessed by the LAC. However, it nowhere debars the Reference Court from taking into consideration the sale deeds produced by any of the parties which reflect the price lower than what was assessed by the LAC. In the considered view of this Court, the sale exemplars produced by the parties are the best piece of evidence. The landowners have also relied upon the award No.3 and 4 passed by the LAC. The award No.3 is with respect to the acquisition of the different parcels of land. The landowners have also relied upon the award No.

4 dated 13.07.2009 with respect to the acquisition of the land in village Bohar which is a different village. In this case, with respect to acquisition of land vide a notification dated 13.02.2008, the LAC assessed the market value @ 20,00,000/- per ₹ acre.

land of village Bohar through award No.4 is analogous with the acquired land in village Baliyana.

5.9 Undoubtedly, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the Courts have been adopting various methods to assess the correct market value. The best method to assess the market value of the acquired land is to compare it to the sale exemplar of contemporaneous period of the acquired land. In the absence thereof, the Court can rely upon the sale exemplars of the adjoining or nearby land. The assessment made by the Court with respect to a different parcels of land can be relied upon only if sufficient material is produced before the Court to prove that the assessment made by the Court with respect to the different parcels of land in a previous acquisition was analogous to the land acquired vide a subsequent notification and there is no direct evidence like the sale exemplars of the same period.

No doubt, in the absence of the sufficient material, the courts assume an increase of price of the immovable property by hiking the same on the fixed percentage basis. However, such method can be adopted only if the comparable sale deeds of the same village and the same period are not available. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Chand's case (supra). 5.10 The next argument of the learned counsel representing the landowners is with regard to the application of 20% development cut. In the present case, once there is a doubt about the genuineness of the sale deed Ex.P1 for the purpose of reliance to assess the market value, the aforesaid argument looses its sheen. However, in any case, through Ex.P1, only the land measuring 2 acres had been sold @ 20,00,000/- per acre.

acquisition of the land, in the present case, is 713 acres 2 kanals and 5 marlas. The beneficiary agency is required to develop the area. In such circumstances, the development cut applied by the Reference Court cannot be said to be wrong.

5.11 It is pertinent to note that the Corporation has not filed any cross appeals. Hence, this court does not find any reason to modify or enhance the market value of the acquired land from the assessment of the Reference Court.

6.

CONCLUSION:

6.1 Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion is inescapable. There is no merit in the appeals. Hence, all the appeals are dismissed.

6.2 The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge October 27, 2021 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 1.

RFA-31-2017 HARPAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2.

RFA-32-2017 JAIPAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 3.

RFA-33-2017 RAGHBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 4.

RFA-34-2017 TARA CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 5.

RFA-35-2017 BHIM SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 6.

RFA-36-2017 KHERI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

7.

RFA-37-2017 RAJBIR SINGH @ RAJ SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 8.

RFA-38-2017 HARI SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 9.

RFA-39-2017 KHAZANI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 10.

RFA-40-2017 SMT. SAVITA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 11.

RFA-41-2017 OM NARAIN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 12.

RFA-42-2017 HOSHIYARA (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 13.

RFA-3986-2016 CHATTER SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 14.

RFA-3987-2016 PARVAT SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 15.

RFA-3988-2016 RAMPHAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 16.

RFA-3989-2016 PARVAT SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 17.

RFA-3990-2016 BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 18.

RFA-3991-2016 RAVINDER AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 19.

RFA-3992-2016 BALBIR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 20.

RFA-4050-2016 SUBE SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 21.

RFA-4051-2016 DEVENDER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 22.

RFA-4054-2016 RAM SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 23.

RFA-4055-2016 RAMKANWAR DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 24.

RFA-4056-2016 SUBE SINGH AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 25.

RFA-4057-2016 JAIPAL AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 26.

RFA-4058-2016 SMT. SUSHILA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 27.

RFA-4059-2016 SOBHA AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 28.

RFA-4060-2016 AZAD SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 29.

RFA-4061-2016 JAGBIR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 30.

RFA-4142-2016 PHOOLPATI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

31.

RFA-4143-2016 MEER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 32.

RFA-4144-2016 RAJENDER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 33.

RFA-4145-2016 ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 34.

RFA-4146-2016 MEER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 35.

RFA-4147-2016 PARTAP SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 36.

RFA-4148-2016 NARENDER AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 37.

RFA-4181-2016 UMED SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 38.

RFA-4182-2016 OM PARKASH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 39.

FA-4183-2016 PAWAN KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 40.

RFA-4184-2016 KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 41.

RFA-4185-2016 PAWAN KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 42.

RFA-4186-2016 JAGDISH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 43.

RFA-4187-2016 KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 44.

RFA-4188-2016 BHALLE RAM DECEASED THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 45.

RFA-4189-2016 PAYARI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 46.

RFA-4190-2016 MEENA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 47.

RFA-4197-2016 PAWAN KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 48.

RFA-4419-2016 MEER SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 49.

RFA-4420-2016 SMT. SANTOSH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 50.

RFA-4421-2016 LEHNA SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 51.

RFA-4422-2016 SMT. SANTOSH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER 52.

RFA-4423-2016 SMT. SANTOSH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 53.

RFA-4424-2016 SMT. SANTOSH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 54.

RFA-4482-2016 SHARMILA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 55.

RFA-4483-2016 PRITAM KUMAR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

56.

RFA-4522-2016 DALEL SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 57.

RFA-4523-2016 DALEL SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 58.

RFA-4524-2016 DALEL SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 59.

RFA-4525-2016 DHAN RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 60.

RFA-4526-2016 DHAN RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 61.

RFA-4527-2016 DHAN RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 62.

RFA-4528-2016 MAHA SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 63.

RFA-4529-2016 HUKAM SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 64.

RFA-4530-2016 DHAN RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 65.

RFA-4531-2016 MAHA SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 66.

RFA-4532-2016 MAHA SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 67.

RFA-4533-2016 SHYAM SUNDER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 68.

RFA-4534-2016 KAPOOR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 69.

RFA-4535-2016 DHAN RAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 70.

RFA-4536-2016 MAHA SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 71.

RFA-4537-2016 JAGDISH CHANDER AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 72.

RFA-4538-2016 DHARAMBIR @ DHARAMPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 73.

RFA-4539-2016 DHARAMBIR @ DHARAMPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 74.

RFA-4540-2016 DHARAMBIR ALIAS DHARMPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 75.

RFA-4541-2016 AZAD SINGH AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 76.

RFA-4542-2016 DHARAMPAL AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 77.

RFA-4543-2016 CHAND ROOP AND ANR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 78.

RFA-4544-2016 SISH PAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND

OTHERS 79.

RFA-4545-2016 JAGDISH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 80.

RFA-4546-2016 OMPATI AND (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LR OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 81.

RFA-4547-2016 PREET SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 82.

RFA-4548-2016 KRISHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 83.

RFA-4549-2016 SAJJAN SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 84.

RFA-4550-2016 SMT. MALHO AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 85.

RFA-4551-2016 SAVITRI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 86.

RFA-4552-2016 HARPAL SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 87.

RFA-4553-2016 RAM KANWAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 88.

RFA-4554-2016 AZAD SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 89.

RFA-4555-2016 TEK RAM AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 90.

RFA-4556-2016 DHARAMBIR @ DHARAMPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 91.

RFA-4557-2016 AZAD SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 92.

RFA-4825-2016 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 93.

RFA-4835-2016 SMT. RATNI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 94.

RFA-4836-2016 SANJEET AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 95.

RFA-4837-2016 SMT. RAMRATI (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 96.

RFA-4838-2016 BHIM SINGH AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 97.

RFA-4839-2016 VEER BHAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 98.

RFA-4840-2016 RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 99.

RFA-4841-2016 HAWA SINGH THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA

AND OTHERS 100.

RFA-4842-2016 HAWA SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 101.

RFA-4843-2016 ISHWAR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 102.

RFA-4844-2016 OMPATI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 103.

RFA-4845-2016 UMED SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LR V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 104.

RFA-4846-2016 JAIPAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 105.

RFA-4851-2016 JAI CHAND V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 106.

RFA-4847-2016 SHANTI (DECEASED) THROUGH LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 107.

RFA-4852-2016 TARA CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 108.

RFA-10-2017 BALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 109.

RFA-11-2017 MAHA SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 110.

RFA-12-2017 SMT. BRAHMO AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 111.

RFA-13-2017 VEDPAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 112.

RFA-14-2017 VEDPAL AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 113.

RFA-15-2017 RANDHIR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 114.

RFA-17-2017 KHERI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 115.

RFA-18-2017 CHANDER (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 116.

RFA-19-2017 DHARAMBIR AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 117.

RFA-20-2017 DALIP (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 118.

RFA-21-2017 PURAN AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 119.

RFA-22-2017 KEHRI V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 120.

RFA-23-2017 ISHWAR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 121.

RFA-28-2017 TARA CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 122.

RFA-29-2017 JAGBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 123.

RFA-76-2017 SMT. SANTOSH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA

AND ANOTHER 124.

RFA-120-2017 NAFE SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 125.

RFA-121-2017 MAHABIR AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 126.

RFA-122-2017 RAMPHAL AND ANOTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 127.

RFA-123-2017 RAM CHANDER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 128.

RFA-124-2017 RAGBIR SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 129.

RFA-170-2017 NAFE SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 130.

RFA-213-2017 NARAIN DUTT AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 131.

RFA-476-2017 BALMAT AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 132.

RFA-477-2017 SHAMSHER SINGH AND OTHER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 133.

RFA-2470-2017 PARAS RAM AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 134.

RFA-3691-2017 KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 135.

RFA-126-2018 DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 136.

RFA-2015-2018 VIRENDER AND OTHERS. V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 137.

RFA-2685-2018 VIRENDER AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 138.

RFA-3594-2018 HAWA SINGH V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 139.

RFA-5049-2018 DHARMENDER AND OTHERS V/S LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS 140.

RFA-5160-2018 SUNDER SINGH @ SURENDER SINGH V/S LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM DRO ROHTAK AND OTHERS 141.

RFA-5163-2018 CHANDER SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 142.

RFA-1329-2019 SURENDER SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 143.

RFA-730-2017 JITENDER SINGH AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 144.

RFA-2176-2021 PREM SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS