Balwan And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 12.02.2024 Pronounced On: 22.02.2024 Balwan Singh and Others ... Review Applicant/Appellant(s)

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitesh Malik, Advocate for the review applicant/appellant(s).

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

Mr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

CM-5064-CI-2023 IN RA-RF-356-2023 IN RFA-30-2017 1.

In view of the prayer made in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The proposed legal representatives, named in para 2 of the application, are the Class-I heirs of appellant No. 4(a)-Jagdish Kumar, who is stated to have died on 20.02.2022. They are permitted to be brought on record as the legal heirs of appellant No. 4(a)-Jagdish Kumar, for the purpose of prosecuting the present review application only.

CM-5067-CI-2023 IN RA-RF-356-2023 IN RFA-30-2017 2.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 323 days in filing the review application is condoned. RA-RF-356-2023 IN RFA-30-2017 And Other Connected Cases 3.

A batch of 128 review applications has come up for final disposal. On 27.10.2021, while deciding a bunch of the regular first appeals, this Court delivered the judgment in the lead case i.e. Regular First Appeal No. 30 of 2017 titled as "Balwan and Others v. State of Haryana and Others". The market value of the acquired land measuring 713 acres, 2 kanals and 5 marlas located in village Baliyana as on 13.02.2008 was assessed @ ₹16,00,000/- per acre. In the Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court by the landowners, the following order was passed:- "The principal complaint which is pressed before us by the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner are two fold. Firstly, it is pointed out that in respect of land acquired under Notification dated 09.06.2006 from the same village, this Court has by judgment dated 18.05.

2022 (2022 SCC OnLine SC 637) accepted the value of Rs.17 Lakhs per acre. It is pointed out that the Section 4(1) Notification in the present cases is dated 13.02.2008. Therefore, it is contended that ordinarily the price of land would certainly not have stood still and that this point was urged before the High Court and it is noted also but it is not dealt with.

The further compliant which is pressed into service is as regards the High Court not relying upon exhibit P-1. It is pointed out that the reasons given cannot be justified. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner prays for to

withdraw these SLPs with liberty to file a review. We further make it clear that in case such a review limited to these two aspects is decided against the Petitioner(s) it will be open open to the Petitioner(s) to challenge the impugned order also. The SLP(s) is/ are dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty."

4.

This Court has once again heard the learned senior counsel representing the review applicants as well as the respondents. 5.

The learned senior counsel representing the review applicants submits that the Supreme Court has assessed the market value of the adjoining land to the acquired land which is the subject matter of assessment in this case on 09.06.2006 @ ₹17,00,000/- per acre in the judgment Balwan Singh (Dead) by LRs v. State of Haryana (2022) SCC Online SC 637. He submits that in these cases, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act") was issued on 13.02.2008 to acquire the land in the same village. Hence, the price of the land should be more than ₹17,00,000/-. He further submits that the sale deed (Ex.P1) was produced and proved in these cases also as was produced and proved in the previous batch of cases. Hence, this Court has committed a patent error.

6.

On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent(s) submits that there is no patent error and the sale deed (Ex.P1) has already been discussed in detail in para 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of the judgment.

7.

This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties and carefully, with greatest respect, read the

order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 31.10.2022. At this stage, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the tabulated compilation of the sale exemplars produced by the land owners as well as the respondents:- Sale Exemplars produced by the land owners 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 Sale Exemplars produced by the Corporation and M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited 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/- 8.

While deciding the appeals, the sale deed (Ex.P1) has been discussed in para 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, which are extracted as under:- "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.

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. The purchaser of an unpartitioined part of the joint land may opt to get the 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. The Corporation has produced as many as ten 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/-. In the considered view of this Court, this is not the manner in which the market value of the acquired land is to be assessed 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."

9.

There is a small typographical error in third sentence of para 5.6 as the base market value @ ₹17,00,000/- should be as on 09.06.2006 and not on 09.06.2007 which, in fact, stands clarified from the second part of the same very sentence.

10.

It shall be noted here that the judgment of the Court, while assessing the market value of the acquired land, is based upon preponderance of probabilities. The assessment of the market price of the land is based on evaluation/analysis of the evidence produced before the

Court. If proper evidence is not produced, then the assessment of the market value by the Court may not be true reflection of the market value of the acquired land. Hence, the assessment of the market value by the Court is based upon subjective satisfaction of the Court, which, in turn, is based upon the evidence which has been produced by the parties. Whereas on the other hand, copies of the sale deeds of the parcels of land which are having comparatively similar location with the acquired land are better pieces of evidence when compared to the assessment made by the Court. This can be better explained on perusal of the tabulated compilation. Though the Supreme Court has assessed the market value of the land @ ₹17,00,000/- per acre as on 09.06.2006 with respect to the same village but perusal of the sale deeds (Ex.R/2, Ex.R/3, Ex.

R/4, Ex.R2/2, Ex.R2/3, Ex.R2/4, Ex.R2/5, Ex.R2/6, Ex.R2/7, Ex/R2/8 and Ex.R2/9) consistently prove that despite notification dated 09.06.2006, land comprised in comparative parcels of the land in the same village were being sold at a price which was less than ₹17,00,000/-. In fact, as many as 11 sale deeds have been produced by the respondents out of which the best sale instance is Ex.R2. It is not proved that the sale instance (Ex.R2) is with respect to the parcel of land which is not comparable with the acquired land. The highest price in the various sale deeds produced by the State of Haryana in the tabulated compilation prove that the price of the land in the village was not more than ₹ 16,00,000/- per acre. On 06.04.2007 i.e. after a period of ten months from the date of previous notification dated 09.06.

2006, the land measuring 29 kanals has been sold in the village @ ₹16,00,000/- per acre.

more than 31⁄2 acres of land was sold in the same village i.e. Baliyana. Similarly, the sale instances (Ex.R/3, Ex.R2/6, Ex.R2/8) which are with respect to the land measuring nearly of 1 acre prove that the various parcels of land were being consistently sold at a price which was less than ₹16,00,000/- per acre.

11.

On the other hand, the land owners (applicants) have failed to produce any other sale deed except Ex.P1 relating to the contemporaneous period to help the Court to assess the price. Hence, this Court was left with no choice but to rely upon the sale deeds produced by the respondents. 12.

Furthermore, it shall be noted that this Court has already elaborately explained the reasons which weighed with the Court while ignoring the sale instance (Ex.P1) for the purpose of assessing the market value of the acquired land. Although the learned senior counsel representing the review applicants contends that such reasons are not proper, however, this cannot be a ground to review the judgment. 13.

This Court has carefully read the judgment passed by the supreme Court in Balwan Singh's case (supra). While deciding that case, the market value of the acquired land located in village Kheri Sadh in two different phases and village Baliyana was decided. The correctness of the market value of the acquired land in village Baliyana @ ₹17,00,000/- per acre assessed by the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court, which would be clear from para 36 and 37 of the judgment. It shall be noted here that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, the Court does not grant a decree of declaration that a particular price is the market value of

the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court is expected to assess the market value on the basis of the evidence produced before it. Hence, the assessment of market value made in the previous judgment is relevant and a good piece of evidence, however, it cannot be preferred as compared to the direct evidence i.e. the sale deeds of the contemporaneous period of the comparative parcels of the land.

14.

Keeping in view aforesaid discussions, finding no merits, all the review applications are dismissed.

15.

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

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge February 22, 2024 "DK"

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

Case No.

Title 1.

RA-RF-326-2023 Ram Singh (Deceased) Through LR. V. State Of Haryana And Others 2.

RA-RF-394-2023 Kartar Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 3.

RA-RF-398-2023 Randhir (Deceased) Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 4.

RA-RF-273-2023 Smt. Santosh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 5.

RA-RF-385-2023 Jagbir Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 6.

RA-RF-308-2023 Smt. Payari And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 7.

RA-RF-393-2023 Shamsher Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 8.

RA-RF-392-2023 Kheri (Since Deceased) Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 9.

RA-RF-316-2023 Maha Singh (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 10.

RA-RF-380-2023 Raghbir Singh Deceased, Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana 11.

RA-RF-379-2023 Bhim Singh Since Deceased Through LRs. And Another. V. State Of Haryana And Others

Sr. No.

Case No.

Title 12.

RA-RF-381-2023 Ram Chander And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 13.

RA-RF-378-2023 Smt Brahmo And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 14.

RA-RF-368-2023 Vedpal (Since Deceased) Through His LRs. And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 15.

RA-RF-288-2023 Smt. Om Pati (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 16.

RA-RF-292-2023 Pawan Kumar V. State Of Haryana And Others 17.

RA-RF-291-2023 Dharambir @ Dharampal (Deceased) Through LRs. And Another V/ S State Of Haryana And Others 18.

RA-RF-290-2023 Smt. Sushila V. State Of Haryana And Others 19.

RA-RF-289-2023 Surender Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 20.

RA-RF-307-2023 Tek Ram And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 21.

RA-RF-324-2023 Jagdish Chander And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 22.

RA-RF-325-2023 Dharambir @ Dharampal (Deceased) Through LRs. And Another V/ S State Of Haryana And Others 23.

RA-RF-328-2023 Pritam Kumar V. State Of Haryana And Others 24.

RA-RF-317-2023 Jagdish And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 25.

RA-RF-365-2023 Bhim Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 26.

RA-RF-2-2024 Khazani And Others V. State Of Haryana And Ors 27.

RA-RF-312-2023 Sobha @ Ompati And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 28.

RA-RF-313-2023 Dharambir @ Dharampal (Deceased) Through LRs. And Another V/ S State Of Haryana And Others 29.

RA-RF-293-2023 Smt. Phoolpati (Deceased) Through LRs.. V. State Of Haryana And Others 30.

RA-RF-294-2023 Smt. Savitri And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 31.

RA-RF-295-2023 Veer Bhan And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 32.

RA-RF-329-2023 Ram Kanwar (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 33.

RA-RF-395-2023 Puran And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 34.

RA-RF-396-2023 Harpal And Ors V. State Of Haryana And Ors 35.

RA-RF-298-2023 Pawan Kumar V. State Of Haryana And Others 36.

RA-RF-299-2023 Kapoor Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 37.

RA-RF-332-2023 Jaipal And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 38.

RA-RF-344-2023 Malho (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 39.

RA-RF-343-2023 Dhan Raj (Deceased) Through LR. V. State Of Haryana And Others 40.

RA-RF-3-2024 Jaipal And Ors V. State Of Haryana And Ors 41.

RA-RF-345-2023 Chand Roop And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 42.

RA-RF-346-2023 Maha Singh Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 43.

RA-RF-355-2023 Chatter Singh And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 44.

RA-RF-360-2023 Smt. Ratni And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 45.

RA-RF-315-2023 Jagdish (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others

Sr. No.

Case No.

Title 46.

RA-RF-314-2023 Krishan Kumar And Another. V. State Of Haryana And Others 47.

RA-RF-301-2023 Balbir Singh (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 48.

RA-RF-300-2023 Parvat Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 49.

RA-RF-373-2023 Mahabir And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 50.

RA-RF-372-2023 Balmat And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 51.

RA-RF-371-2023 Ishwar Singh Since Deceased Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 52.

RA-RF-400-2023 Tara Chand Deceased Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 53.

RA-RF-335-2023 Jaipal And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 54.

RA-RF-339-2023 Parvat Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 55.

RA-RF-338-2023 Meer Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 56.

RA-RF-361-2023 Smt. Santosh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 57.

RA-RF-362-2023 Dhan Raj (Deceased) Through LR. V. State Of Haryana And Others 58.

RA-RF-374-2023 Nafe Singh Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 59.

RA-RF-375-2023 Hoshiyara (Deceased) Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 60.

RA-RF-377-2023 Smt. Santosh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 61.

RA-RF-376-2023 Nafe Singh Since Deceased Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 62.

RA-RF-391-2023 Tara Chand Since Deceased Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 63.

RA-RF-297-2023 Balbir V. State Of Haryana And Others 64.

RA-RF-296-2023 Hawa Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 65.

RA-RF-356-2023 Balwan And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 66.

RA-RF-358-2023 Virender And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 67.

RA-RF-359-2023 Hawa Singh (Deceased) Through LRs.. V. State Of Haryana And Others 68.

RA-RF-397-2023 Dharambir And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 69.

RA-RF-382-2023 Balbir Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana Others 70.

RA-RF-384-2023 Hari Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 71.

RA-RF-383-2023 Om Narain (Since Deceased) Through LRs. And Ors V. State Of Haryana And Others 72.

RA-RF-311-2023 Meer Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 73.

RA-RF-390-2023 Chander Since Deceased Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 74.

RA-RF-389-2023 Kheri Since Deceased Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 75.

RA-RF-388-2023 Vedpal And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 76.

RA-RF-387-2023 Rajbir Singh Alias Raj Singh Through His LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 77.

RA-RF-386-2023 Kheri Deceased Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 78.

RA-RF-331-2023 Hukam Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 79.

RA-RF-333-2023 Harpal Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 80.

RA-RF-334-2023 Pawan Kumar V. State Of Haryana And Others

Sr. No.

Case No.

Title 81.

RA-RF-340-2023 Smt. Santosh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 82.

RA-RF-342-2023 Dharampal (Deceased) Through LRs. And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 83.

RA-RF-341-2023 Dhan Raj (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 84.

RA-RF-306-2023 Azad And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 85.

RA-RF-309-2023 Ashok Kumar And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 86.

RA-RF-327-2023 Sube Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 87.

RA-RF-285-2023 Partap Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 88.

RA-RF-284-2023 Azad Singh And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 89.

RA-RF-286-2023 Dharamender And Others V. Lac Cum Dro, Rohtak And Others 90.

RA-RF-287-2023 Jagbir Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 91.

RA-RF-279-2023 Azad Singh And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 92.

RA-RF-280-2023 Sanjeet And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 93.

RA-RF-283-2023 Tara Chand (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 94.

RA-RF-281-2023 Meer Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 95.

RA-RF-282-2023 Rajender Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 96.

RA-RF-357-2023 Maha Singh (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 97.

RA-RF-276-2023 Sajjan Singh (Deceased) Through LRs.. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 98.

RA-RF-337-2023 Sish Pal And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 99.

RA-RF-336-2023 Santosh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 100.

RA-RF-370-2023 Jitender Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 101.

RA-RF-369-2023 Raghbir Singh Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 102.

RA-RF-274-2023 Dhan Raj (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 103.

RA-RF-305-2023 Hawa Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 104.

RA-RF-1-2024 Ramphal Through LRs. And Another V. State Of Haryana And Others 105.

RA-RF-310-2023 Smt. Meena V. State Of Haryana And Others 106.

RA-RF-318-2023 Ram Kanwar And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 107.

RA-RF-399-2023 Dalip Deceased Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others 108.

RA-RF-319-2023 Ishwar Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 109.

RA-RF-320-2023 Umed Singh And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 110.

RA-RF-321-2023 Om Parkash V. State Of Haryana And Others 111.

RA-RF-322-2023 Dharambir @ Dharampal (Deceased) Through LRs. And Another V/ S State Of Haryana And Others 112.

RA-RF-323-2023 Narender And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 113.

RA-RF-330-2023 Maha Singh V. State Of Haryana And Others 114.

RA-RF-349-2023 Raj Kumar And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 115.

RA-RF-348-2023 Virender And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 116.

RA-RF-347-2023 Preet Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. V. State Of

Sr. No.

Case No.

Title Haryana And Others 117.

RA-RF-350-2023 Smt. Shanti (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 118.

RA-RF-351-2023 Umed Singh (Deceased) Through LR. V. State Of Haryana And Others 119.

. RA-RF-352-2023 Lehna Singh (Deceased) Through. LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 120.

RA-RF-353-2023 Ompati And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 121.

RA-RF-354-2023 Smt. Ramrati (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 122.

RA-RF-364-2023 Ramphal (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 123.

RA-RF-275-2023 Dhan Raj (Deceased) Through LRs. And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 124.

RA-RF-277-2023 Bhalle Ram (Deceased) Through LRs.. V. State Of Haryana And Others 125.

RA-RF-278-2023 Jai Chand V. State Of Haryana And Others 126.

RA-RF-303-2023 Ravinder And Another. V. State Of Haryana And Others 127.

RA-RF-302-2023 Krishan Kumar And Others V. State Of Haryana And Others 128.

RA-RF-304-2023 Azad Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. V. State Of Haryana And Others (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge February 22, 2024 "DK"