RFA No. 1417 of 2011 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1417 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.5.2011 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants vs Nathu Singh and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1417 to 1423, 1465 to 1476, 1925 of 2011, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. By filing appeals, State of Haryana is seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land acquired for construction of Dhana Minor for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was issued by the State of Haryana on 28.7.2003. The land is situated within the revenue estate of villages Satnali and Sureti Jakhar, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31.5.2004. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide awards dated 27.5.2005 and 12.5.2005 assessed the market value of the acquired land of villages Satnali and Sureti Jakhar respectively as under:- Name of village Kind of land Price per acre Satnali Barani ` 1,50,000/- Bhood ` 1,00,000/- Sureti Jakhar Barani ` 1,25,000/- Bhood ` 85,000/- RFA No. 1417 of 2011 (2) The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land at the following rates:- Name of village Kind of land Price per acre Satnali Barani ` 2,70,000/- Bhood ` 2,40,000/- Surheti Jakhal Barani ` 2,40,000/- Bhood ` 2,00,000/- Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had not given any reasoning whatsoever while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. The evidence led by the State was totally ignored. He further argued that the value of the land of each area is different keeping in view the location and other advantages. But in the present case, the learned court below without there being any reason enhanced the compensation for the acquired land. It had merely applied a thumb rule. The value of the land in the area was not as has been assessed by the learned court below. The prayer was for setting aside of award of the learned court below and restoration of the Collector. Heard learned counsel State and perused the relevant referred record. In number of cases, which came up for hearing before this court, a reference was made to the policy dated 28.4.2005 framed by the Government in terms of which for the awards announced on or after 5.3.2005, the minimum rates for the acquisition of land in the State of Haryana, was fixed at ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The relevant extract of aforesaid policy is as under:- i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub- Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.12.50 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. RFA No. 1417 of 2011 (3) (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894).” As per the aforesaid letter minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable to all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 5.3.2005 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 27.5.2005 and 12.5.2005 and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.7.2003. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, the value of the acquired land determined by the learned court below cannot be said on higher side. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, all the accompanying applications are also dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of appeals filed by the State will not affect the merits of the appeal of the landowners, in case filed by them. The same shall be considered independently. 4.5.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge