RFA No.3125 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.3125 of 1999 Date of Decision: 24.12.2009 Diwan Chand .……Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate with Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate and Mr. D. K. Sihag, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RFA Nos.2995, 3121 to 3127, 2871, 3143 to 3146, 3310 to 3314 and respondent(s) in RFA Nos.3524, 3526, 3527, 3530, 3531, 3532 and 3533 of 1999. Mr. Ashwani Bakshi,,Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.3510 to 3513 and respondent(s) in RFA No.3529 of 1999. Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, AAG, Haryana. Mr. A. K. Pathania, Advocate for HSIDC. None for the remaining parties. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) By this common judgment, I am disposing of below mentioned 39 appeals as the same pertain to acquisition of land in village Khairpur, Hadbast No.79, for integrated Infrastructural Development Centre,Sirsa for providing Industrial plots/sheds to the small scale industries with modern infrastructural facilities. 1. RFA No.3513 of 1999 Dayal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 2. RFA No.3512 of 1999 Lakhwinder Kaur versus State of Haryana and others RFA No.3125 of 1999 -2- 3. RFA No.725 of 2000 Gurcharan Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 4. RFA No.114 of 2000 Kashmir Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 5. RFA No.3311 of 1999 Smt. Bhagwani Bai and others versus State of Haryana and others 6. RFA No.3312 of 1999 Shinagara Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others 7. RFA No.2871 of 1999 Mulakh Raj Mehta versus State of Haryana and others 8. RFA No.3313 of 1999 Ganesh Dass versus State of Haryana and others 9. RFA No.3143 of 1999 Diwan Chand Mehta versus State of Haryana and others 10. RFA No.3144 of 1999 Ishwar Chander versus State of Haryana and others 11. RFA No.3145 of 1999 Krishan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others 12. RFA No.3146 of 1999 Smt. Ganga Devi versus State of Haryana and others 13. RFA No.247 of 2000 Nirmal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 14. RFA No.107 of 2000 Smt. Iqbal Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others 15. RFA No.3310 of 1999 Nanak Chand versus State of Haryana and others 16. RFA No.3125 of 1999 Diwan Chand versus State of Haryana and others 17. RFA No.126 of 2000 Sukhjit Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others 18. RFA No.3379 of 1999 Iqbal Kaur versus State of Haryana and others 19. RFA No.3127 of 1999 Ishwar Chander versus State of Haryana and others 20. RFA No.3126 of 1999 Ram Rang versus State of Haryana and others 21. RFA No.3121 of 1999 Smt. Bhagwani Bai and others versus State of Haryana and others 22. RFA No.3122 of 1999 Pyara Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others 23. RFA No.3123 of 1999 Nanak Chand versus State of Haryana and others 24. RFA No.3124 of 1999 Ganga Devi versus State of Haryana and others 25. RFA No.3510 of 1999 Dayal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 26. RFA No.3511 of 1999 Nirmal Singh versus State of Haryana and others 27. RFA No.2995 of 1999 Mulkha Raj Mehta versus State of Haryana and others 28. RFA No.3523 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Surinder Singh and others 29. RFA No.3524 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Bhagwani Bai and others 30. RFA No.3526 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Kirshan Kumar and others 31. RFA No.3527 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Ram Rang and others RFA No.3125 of 1999 -3- 32. RFA No.3528 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Dina Nath and others 33. RFA No.3529 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Iqbal Kaur and others 34. RFA No.3530 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Diwan Chand and others 35. RFA No.3531 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Nanak Chand and others 36. RFA No.3532 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Ganga Devi and others 37. RFA No.3533 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Mulakh Raj and others 38. RFA No.3535 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Bhim Sain and others 39. RFA No.2055 of 2000 Swaran Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others Vide notification dated 05.07.1994 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), Haryana State notified 61.52 acres of land in Village Khairpur for acquisition for the aforesaid purpose. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.21 dated 20.03.1996 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for acquired land upto the depth of 1 acre along the national highway No.10 and at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for acquired land beyond the depth of one acre from the national highway. Learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide award dated 02.06.1999 disposed of 17 reference petitions filed by landowners under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and determined the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.175/- per square yard for the land upto the depth of 400 yards from the national highway No.10 and Rs.100/- per square yard for the land beyond the depth of 400 yards from the national highway. Against the said award, landowners have preferred following 15 appeals:- 1. RFA No.3513 of 1999 Dayal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 2. RFA No.3512 of 1999 Lakhwinder Kaur versus State of Haryana and others 3. RFA No.725 of 2000 Gurcharan Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others RFA No.3125 of 1999 -4- 4. RFA No.114 of 2000 Kashmir Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 5. RFA No.3311 of 1999 Smt. Bhagwani Bai and others versus State of Haryana and others 6. RFA No.3312 of 1999 Shinagara Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others 7. RFA No.2871 of 1999 Mulakh Raj Mehta versus State of Haryana and others 8. RFA No.3313 of 1999 Ganesh Dass versus State of Haryana and others 9. RFA No.3143 of 1999 Diwan Chand Mehta versus State of Haryana and others 10. RFA No.3144 of 1999 Ishwar Chander versus State of Haryana and others 11. RFA No.3145 of 1999 Krishan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others 12. RFA No.3146 of 1999 Smt. Ganga Devi versus State of Haryana and others 13. RFA No.247 of 2000 Nirmal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 14. RFA No.107 of 2000 Smt. Iqbal Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others 15. RFA No.3310 of 1999 Nanak Chand versus State of Haryana and others State of Haryana vide notification dated 29.11.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Act notified 11.75 acres land for acquisition for the aforesaid purpose. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.48 dated 08.09.1997 awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.3,42,000/- per acre upto the depth of 1 acre from the national highway and at the rate of Rs.2,28,000/- per acre for land beyond the depth of 1 acre from the national highway. Against the said award, 15 reference petitions were filed by landowners under Section 18 of the Act which were disposed of by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide award dated 01.06.2009 determining the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.175/- per square yard for the land upto the depth of 400 yards from the national highway and Rs.100/- per square yard for the land beyond the depth of 400 yards from the national highway. Against the said award landowners have preferred following 12 appeals:- RFA No.3125 of 1999 -5- 1. RFA No.3125 of 1999 Diwan Chand versus State of Haryana and others 2. RFA No.126 of 2000 Sukhjit Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and others 3. RFA No.3379 of 1999 Iqbal Kaur versus State of Haryana and others 4. RFA No.3127 of 1999 Ishwar Chander versus State of Haryana and others 5. RFA No.3126 of 1999 Ram Rang versus State of Haryana and others 6. RFA No.3121 of 1999 Smt. Bhagwani Bai and others versus State of Haryana and others 7. RFA No.3122 of 1999 Pyara Singh and another versus State of Haryana and others 8. RFA No.3123 of 1999 Nanak Chand versus State of Haryana and others 9. RFA No.3124 of 1999 Ganga Devi versus State of Haryana and others 10. RFA No.3510 of 1999 Dayal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others 11. RFA No.3511 of 1999 Nirmal Singh versus State of Haryana and others 12. RFA No.2995 of 1999 Mulkha Raj Mehta versus State of Haryana and others Whereas HSIDC (for which the land was acquired) has preferred following 11 appeals:- 1. RFA No.3523 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Surinder Singh and others 2. RFA No.3524 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Bhagwani Bai and others 3. RFA No.3526 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Kirshan Kumar and others 4. RFA No.3527 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Ram Rang and others 5. RFA No.3528 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Dina Nath and others 6. RFA No.3529 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Iqbal Kaur and others 7. RFA No.3530 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Diwan Chand and others 8. RFA No.3531 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Nanak Chand and others 9. RFA No.3532 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Ganga Devi and others 10. RFA No.3533 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Mulakh Raj and others 11. RFA No.3535 of 1999 H.S.I.D.C versus Bhim Sain and others Haryana State vide notification dated 29.11.1995 under Section 4 of the Act also acquired 0.2 acres land for the same purpose. Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.49 dated 08.09.1997 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre for the said acquired land. Learned Additional District Judge, RFA No.3125 of 1999 -6- Sirsa vide award dated 09.12.1999 dismissed both the reference petitions filed by landowners under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. Against the said award, some landowners have preferred RFA No.2055 of 2000. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. There is judgment dated 22.09.2004 passed by this Court in RFA No.46 of 2000 titled as ‘Joginder Kaur and others versus State of Haryana and another’ whereby bunch of appeals was disposed of. The said appeals related to acquisition of 118.90 acres land in Village Khairpur for public purpose i.e for development and utilization of land as residential area at Sirsa. Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the said land was issued on 27.11.1992. Land Acquisition Collector assessed market value of the acquired land to be Rs.250/- per square yard for land situated between national highway and canal, which included residential plots and some land of Gopi Chand Testile Mill (GTM), Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for Nehri /chahi land and Rs.1,75,000/- for Barani/Gair Mumkin land in that case. Compensation for land under pits was also assessed at different rates which are not relevant in the instant appeals. In those cases, learned reference Court vide award dated 14.09.1998 decided bunch of references filed by landowners under Section 18 of the Act and maintained the market value awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. Vide another award dated 04.05.1999, learned Reference Court disposed of another bunch of references filed by landowners under Section 18 of the Act and RFA No.3125 of 1999 -7- awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.115/- per square yard for Nehri land and Rs.93/- per square yard for Banjar Qadim and Barani etc. land. Learned reference Court vide another award dated 25.09.1999 disposed of bunch of four references only relating to land located between GT road and the canal (for which Land Acquisition Collector had assessed Rs.250/- per square yard as the market value). Learned Reference Court assessed compensation for the said strip of land at the rate of Rs.700/- per square yard. This Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2004 in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) disposed of bunch of appeals and upheld the market rate of Rs.700/- per square yard determined by the reference Court for the aforesaid strip of land between national highway and the canal and determined the market value of the remaining acquired land at the rate of Rs.115/- per square yard for Nehri land and Rs.93/- per square yard for Banjar Qadim and Barani etc. land as determined by the reference Court vide award dated 04.05.1999. Learned counsel for the landowners contended that land acquired in the instant case is also located on the national highway with front of 11.5 acres abutting the national highway and with maximum depth of 10 acres from the national highway and, therefore, the rate of Rs.700/- per square yard determined in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) should form the basis after applying plus and minus factors. Here it has to be noticed that acquired land involved in the instant appeals is located more than 1 KM away from the strip of land for which market value was determined to be Rs.700/- per square yard in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra). The said strip of land was towards Sirsa town whereas the acquired land RFA No.3125 of 1999 -8- of the instant cases is away from Sirsa town. Learned counsel for the landowners also contended that the remaining acquired land in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) did not fall on national highway, but was far away from the national highway and, therefore, market value of the said land determined in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) cannot form basis for determination of market value of acquired land in the instant cases. In this context, it was also pointed out that the said acquired land in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) was assessed on the basis of being agricultural land whereas the acquired land involved in the instant cases has urban potential. Location of various factories, hospitals, petrol pump etc. was referred to by learned counsel for the landowners to substantiate his aforesaid contention. It was also pointed out that the acquired land fell in the controlled area for which development plan had been notified in Government Gazette dated 28.08.1984. Learned counsel for the landowners also contended that Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had issued Boucher for sale of plots in Sector 20 (for which land was acquired which was involved in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra)) and the rates offered by HUDA were Rs.574/- per square meter to Rs.702/- per square meter. It was contended that appropriate cuts could be applied to the said rates, keeping in view the expenses of development and the area left for roads and other common facilities/amenities. The said Sector is located towards Sirsa town vis-à-vis the acquired land in the instant cases. The said factor also has to be taken into consideration. However, the said Sector is far away from the national highway and the aforesaid rates were offered in February, RFA No.3125 of 1999 -9- 1991 and so these factors should be considered in favour of the landowners. Learned counsel for the landowners also referred to sale instances Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 produced by the landowners. The same are tablulated hereunder:- Document Date of sale Area sold Rate per Distance from Sq. Yards sq. yard from acquired land. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ex.P1 29.10.91 151.25 1091.50 2100 meters. Ex.P2 24.08.92 589.81 337.37 1100 meters. Ex.P3 14.06.90 80.46 397.11 1900 meters. Learned counsel for the landowners contended that the aforesaid instances of small pieces of land/plots can be taken into consideration by applying appropriate cuts and also by enhancing the price for the intervening period from the dates of sale deeds till dates of notifications under Section 4 of the Act. Learned counsel for landowners pointed out that land of sale deed Ex.P-2 was at depth of 6 acres from national highway for which appreciation should be made for determining the market value of acquired land in the instant cases. Learned counsel for landowners also referred to statement of Satpal Mehta RW-1, Manager of HSIDC to contend that acquired land was having potential value in view of its location. Learned counsel for landowners also contended that State Government had started acquiring land in Sirsa including land in village Khairpur for development purposes since the year 1982 onwards. RFA No.3125 of 1999 -10- On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for HSIDC contended that no construction could be made upto depth of 30 meters from the national highway, in view of provisions of the Punjab Roads and Controlled Area (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 and, therefore, this should be taken to be minus factor regarding potentiality of the land. Learned counsel for the landowners contended that the landowners could set up petrol pumps even in the said strip with permission of competent authority. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for HSIDC also contended that as per development plan, the acquired land fell in industrial zone and, therefore, it could not be used for commercial or residential purposes. It was accordingly contended that sale instances Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 pertaining to sale of residential plots cannot be taken into consideration. It was further contended on behalf of State and HSIDC that rates of plots in Sectors developed by HUDA cannot form rational basis for determining market value of the acquired land because considerable area is left by HUDA for roads and other common amenities and lot of expenses are incurred on external and internal development before carving out plots. It was also contended that pamphlet dated 08.02.1991 of HUDA is regarding the rates of HUDA, but not regarding any sale instance of plots having been sold at the said rates. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for HSIDC also referred to sale instances EX.R-2 to R-4 produced by the State before the reference Court. It was also pointed out that as per RFA No.3125 of 1999 -11- Paragraph 24 of the award dated 01.06.1999, even counsel for landowners on the basis of documentary evidence claimed the market value of the acquired land to be Rs.250/- per square yard only. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As regards rate of Rs.700/- per square yard for a small strip of land as determined in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra), even if the same is taken into consideration, it has to be kept in mind that the said strip of land was nearer the town of Sirsa whereas the acquired land herein is far away, may be about two kilometers from the said strip of land. The said land was within municipal limits of Sirsa whereas the acquired land herein falls outside the municipal limits of Sirsa. These two factors make very significant and considerable difference because in urban areas, even with a small distance, price may vary considerably depending on different factors. Location of land within and outside the municipal limits of a big town (district headquarter) also has very significant impact on its market value. On the other hand, market value of Rs.115/- per square yard for Nehri land and Rs.93/- per square yard for Banjar Qadim/Barani etc. land determined in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) also cannot be lost sight of, while keeping in mind the location and the period between dates of notifications under Section 4 of the Act. As regards sale instances Ex.P-1 to P-3, land of sale instances Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3 was located almost 2 KMs away from the acquired land herein whereas the land of sale instance Ex.P-2 RFA No.3125 of 1999 -12- was located more than 1 KM from the acquired land herein. Even otherwise, as per sale instance Ex.P-2, land was sold at Rs.337.37 per square yard only. The same was sold of course on 24.08.1992 i.e two years and three years before the notifications in the instant cases. As regards location of the acquired land, the buildings referred to by learned counsel for the landowners were located far away from the acquired land. Gopi Chand Textile Mill is more than 1 KM away from the acquired land. Satpal Mehta RW-1 has not stated anything favourable to the landowners regarding location of the acquired land. As regards sale instances Ex.R-2 to Ex. R-4, the same are not relevant for the reasons noticed by the reference Court. Market value as per said instances comes to even less than that determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Having said as aforesaid, some guess work has to be applied. It has to be first noticed that the learned Reference Court has determined market value for the acquired land vide awards dated 01.06.1999 and 02.06.1999 at the same rates, notwithstanding that notification under Section 4 of the Act for land in award dated 01.06.1999 was dated 29.11.1995 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act for land in award dated 02.06.1999 was dated 05.07.1994 and, therefore, for the difference period almost 17 months between the dates of notifications under Section 4 of the Act, there had to be some difference between the market price of the acquired land in the two acquisitions. Insofar as RFA No.2055 of 2000 is concerned, notification under Section 4 of the Act for land in RFA No.3125 of 1999 -13- that case was also issued on 29.11.1995. If market price of Rs.115/- per square yard for Nehri land as determined in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) is taken into consideration, notification under Section 4 of the Act for the said land was issued on 27.11.1992. Consequently, increase at the rate of Rs.12% per annum has to be applied for the difference period of dates of notifications under Section 4 of the Act. Moreover, the said land was located far away from the National Highway whereas acquired land in the instant cases abuts the national highway. Similarly, if rate of Rs.700/- per square yard for the strip of land determined in the case of Joginder Kaur (supra) is considered, the said land extended from national highway itself and was far better located being towards interior of the town of Sirsa from the acquired land. As regards belting, Land Acquisition Collector determined higher rate for land with depth upto 1 acre i.e about 70 yards from the national highway whereas the Reference Court determined higher value for land with depth upto 400 yards from the national highway. The depth from national highway taken by the Reference Court for determining higher value is excessive. In my considered opinion, the depth from national highway for higher value should be upto 100 yards. For arriving at the market value of acquired land, sale instance EX.P-2 which was emphatically pressed by counsel for the landowners has to be kept in mind. Land of the said sale deed was more than a kilometer towards Sirsa town from the acquired land herein. Consequently, there has to be significant difference in the RFA No.3125 of 1999 -14- market price of the acquired land as compared to the price of land involved in sale deed Ex.P-2. Of course, some appreciation has to be allowed for difference period between the date of sale deed and the dates of notifications under Section 4 of the Act. In addition to the aforesaid, HUDA offered plots at the rate of Rs.574/- per square meter in a developed Sector. The rate per square yard would come to Rs.475/- approximately. For developing a Sector, almost 40 to 45 per cent area has to be left for roads, streets, parks and other common amenities. Applying a cut of 40% for the same, the rate would come to Rs.285/- per square yard. Further cut of about 30% may be applied for expenses of external and internal development. The rate would thus come to Rs.200/- per square yard. In addition thereto, the land of Sector 20 was towards town of Sirsa whereas the acquired land is away from the town of Sirsa. This would require further adjustment. Moreover, there is no evidence that anybody purchased plot in Sector 20 at the rate of Rs.574/- per square meter as offered by HUDA. However, some appreciation has to be allowed as Sector-20 is located away from National Highway. The rate of Rs.115/-