Yashpal And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

1 2024:PHHC:053226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CM-421-CI-2024 in/and RA-RF-10-2024 (O&M) in RFA-4155-2017 Date of Order: 19.04.2024 Dharam Singh (deceased) through LRs and others .. Applicant-Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Jivesh Malik, Advocate, for the applicant-appellants.

Mr. J.S.Pannu, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Vamika Johar, Advocate for HSIIDC.

***** ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) CM-421-CI-2024 in RA-RF-10-2024 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 359 days in filing the review application, is condoned.

CM stands allowed.

RA-RF-10-2024 1.

This order shall dispose of 38 review applications (details whereof are at the foot of the judgment) filed by the land owners.

2 2024:PHHC:053226 2.

By a detailed judgment dated 13.05.2022, a batch of connected Regular First Appeals was disposed of while assessing the market value of the acquired land as on 11.01.2010, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 Act') in village Baliyana, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The land owners filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file Review Application on 28.11.2022 with the following order :- "Upon our expressing reservations in entertaining these petitions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw these petitions at this stage with liberty for the petitioners in taking recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law.

Permission granted.

The application seeking permission to file special leave petitions is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed, including to file review petition before the High Court.

However, it is made clear that we have not made any comments as regards the maintainability and/or sustainability of any such other remedy or recourse by the petitioners, that shall be examined in the appropriate forum in accordance with law."

3.

Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length. 4.

Learned counsel representing the applicant(s) has submitted that the allotment of 700 acres of land by HSIIDC to M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. @ Rs. 75 Lakhs vide allotment letter dated 13.08.2009 has not been adverted to while deciding the appeals. On a Court question, learned

3 2024:PHHC:053226 counsel representing the applicant(s) admit that the aforesaid allotment letter was never produced in evidence. In such circumstances, this Court was only required to refer to the evidence which was brought on record. The landowners had produced as many as seven sale deeds, whereas the State of Haryana had produced as many as five sale deeds. All exemplar sale deeds were examined and analysed and discussed by the Court. However, learned counsel representing the applicant(s) submit that while deciding RFA-41632017 (Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. Kulbir and others), on 01.09.2021, this Court has examined the allotment letter in favour of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the aforesaid case arose from acquisition of land of village Baliyana. 5.

This Court has considered the submissions, in fact, in the aforesaid cases arose from a different notification and the allotment letter was produced in evidence and examined. However, as previously noted, the landowners never produced the allotment letter either before the reference Court or before this Court, hence, there was no occasion to examine the same.

6.

In any case, the allotment letter issued by HSIIDC in favour of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is an area which is a planned for establishing a industrial sector, whereas the acquired land was the agriculture land. The Maruti Suzuki on being allotted land in planned area was assured access of basic amenities, like availability of connectivity road, electricity, water supply and other related facilities. Hence, the allotment letter in favour of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is not a good exemplar to assess the market value of undeveloped agriculture land. Hence, no ground to review is made out.

4 2024:PHHC:053226 7.

Dismissed.

8.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

19.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RA-RF-18-2024 in RFA-3894-2017 Yashpal and Others vs State of Haryana and RA-RF-22-2024 in RFA-3895-2017 Ram Chander and Others vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-24-2024 in RFA-3896-2017 Mauji and Others vs State of Haryana and RA-RF-37-2024 in RFA-3897-2017 Kuljeet Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-46-2024 in RFA-3898-2017 Om Narain (Deceased) through his LRs and RA-RF-25-2024 in RFA-3899-2017 Har Kishan and Others vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-47-2024 in RFA-3924- 2017 Ompati vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-14-2024 in RFA-3925-2017 Jagbir Singh vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-17-2024 in RFA-3926-2017 Mohjit Singh vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-26-2024 in RFA-3927- 2017 Rajpal vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-13-2024 in RFA-3928-2017 Raj Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-28-2024 in RFA-3929-2017 Narayan vs State of Haryana and Others

5 2024:PHHC:053226 RA-RF-15-2024 in RFA-3930-2017 Smt.

6 2024:PHHC:053226 RA-RF-29-2024 in RFA-4609-2017 Dharambir Singh vs State of Haryana and RA-RF-11-2024 in RFA-4952-2017 Dharam Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-27-2024 in RFA-5060-2017 Anoop and Others vs State of Haryana and RA-RF-33-2024 in RFA-5313-2017 Satyavir and Others vs State of Haryana and RA-RF-19-2024 in RFA-5314-2017 Satyavir and Others vs State of Haryana and RA-RF-35-2024 in RFA-5455- 2017 Surinder Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others RA-RF-34-2024 in RFA-144- 2018 Bani Singh (Deceased) through LRs and 19.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE