RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:19.10.2011 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Chhano and others ....Respondents RFA No.1396 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Mahabir Singh and others ....Respondents RFA No.1397 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Arjun and others ....Respondents RFA No.1398 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Mahabir and others ....Respondents RFA No.1399 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Smt. Sunehri widow of Ved Parkash and others ....Respondents RFA No.1400 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Raj Kumar and others ....Respondents RFA No.1401 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Satya Wan and others ....Respondents RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 2 RFA No.1402 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Abhey Ram and others ....Respondents RFA No.1403 of 2011 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Suresh Kumar ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. H.S.Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents in RFA Nos.1399 of 2011 and RFA No.1402 of 2011 except respondent No.2. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of 9 Regular First Appeal No.1395 to 1403 of 2011 which have arising out of the same common award of the Reference Court dated 08.02.2010, arising out of the reference applications which were filed by the landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification. The State of Haryana has filed the instant appeals against the impugned award dated 08.02.2010 of the Reference Court, Hisar, on the ground that market value of the acquired land on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 24.10.2000 was on the higher side. The Land Acquisition Collector RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 3 vide his award dated 24.07.2003 determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.1,30,000/-per acre for Nehri kind (canal irrigated) and Rs.65,000/- per acre for Taal(barren /pond). Aggrieved from the aforesaid award, landowners filed reference applications under Section-18 of the Act, pleading that at the time of assessing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector has not considered the relevant factors for determining the market value of the land in question and has ignored the facts that value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was not less than Rs.3 lacs per acre. It was also submitted that Land Acquisition Collector further erred that while considering the nature of land as Taal and Nehri kind as the acquired land was situated within the commercial command area. Even the revenue record was ignored while considering the aforesaid question. The acquired land has yet potentiality for residential, commercial and industrial growth and thus compensation was liable to be enhanced. The aforesaid reference applications were contested by the appellant-State raising various preliminary objections. It was further stated that the acquired land was far away from the village Abadi having no commercial and industrial potentiality and was purely agricultural nature. The land was falling in low lying area and remained submerged under the Canal Water and lease rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar was paid by the landowners for the use of their land and the market value as determined by the LAC which is inadequate, before the reference Court. Landowners relied upon an agreement to sell Ex.P14, according to which one Surender Singh son of Lakhi Ram, on 17.4.2000 has agreed to sell 22 kanal 2 RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 4 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of village Sharwa at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per acre, whereas the appellants relied upon document Ex.R2 dated 15.5.2003 a sale deed pertaining to 86 kanal 11 marlas land situated within the revenue estate of village Sharwa for Rs.70,6000/- only. The Reference Court while determining the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.2 lacs per acre held that the acquired land was of Nehri kind of land and rejected the documents produced by both the parties observing that the agreement to sale Ex.P14 was not proved in accordance with law and the document Ex.R2 relied upon by the State was not admissible instance being post notification. However, it is useful to refer to the relevant observations of the Reference Court which reads thus:- “Mani Ram, PW-1, being Sub Divisional Clerk, from Siwani Water Services Sub Division, Hisar appeared into witness box as PW-1 and proved the compensation of the acquired land to the petitions, in the year 1995-96 to 2000 vide documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.These documents shows prior to the acquisition, the acquired land was on lease with the respondents, for shortage of canal water and later on the same was acquired for reservoir. RW1 Dharambir, Sub Divisional Officer, Siwani Water Services Sub Division, Hisar, when stepped into witness box admitted that the escaped water was not going through acquired and by the natural flow. He also admitted in the reservoir, water was accumulating for the last around 12 years and for which compensation was being paid. He also admitted the acquired land is situated near Hisar Miran road and then somersaulted and stated it is situated almost at the distance of 2 RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 5 acres from Hisar Miran road. He also admitted the acquired land was surrounded by strawberry garden. PW-1 Mani Ram admitted, at the relevant time, the collector rate of the land of village Sharwa was Rs.1,80,000/- per acre. When the acquired land has already been used as reservoir, by the respondents, for at least 12 years, prior to the acquisition, then this Court do not understand how the petitioner/interested persons were capable to grow crops in the same and on what basis the LAC considered the same as of Taal kind. The LAC ignored the collector rate also. From the own document of the respondents which is copy of statement under Section 19 of the Act, it is clear the acquire land was of Nehri kind. Under the circumstances, the LAC was not justified ignoring the collector rate then prevalent in the area as well as nature of acquired land and his decision, considering the nehri kind of land into Taal kind land was not based on any rationale. Considering the totality of facts such as agricultural potentiality, its situation, hardship which is to be faced by the land owners/interested person after the acquisition of their land, sale deed Ex.R2 and reverting the clock back from the date of sale deed Ex.R2 to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, this court is of the view, in case LAC would have assessed the market value of the acquired land on the date of publication under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 24.10.2000, at the rate of Rs.2 lac per acre, irrespective of its kind, it would have served the purpose. In this way, awarding of compensation to the petitioners/interested persons, of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre for nehri kind and Rs.65,000/- for Taal kind, was wholly unfair. Considering all the relevant facts, this Court assess the market value of RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 6 the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2 lac per acre on 24.10.2000 i.e the date of publication under Section 4 of the Act, plus all the statutory benefits. Both these issues partly go in favour of the petitioner.” It may also be relevant to mention at this stage that the instant appeals have been filed after a delay of 266 days on expiry of the limitation period. In the application for condonation of delay the only ground taken reads thus:- “Thereafter, the case was also processed officially and it took some time for taking further necessary action and in this way there occurred a delay of 266 days in filing appeal which was not deliberate and intentional rather on account of procedural processing and same is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.” The aforesaid explanation hardly discloses any sufficient reasons on the basis of which such delay can be condoned. No doubt the Court should adopt liberal approach while considering the question of condoning the delay but the delay can be condoned only if the explanation submitted in this regard is plausible which constitute a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Thus, there are no reasons to condone the aforesaid delay. Not only this, it is clear that the revenue record was not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector while determining the market value of the land in dispute showing the non-application of mind to the real facts of the case. Even the Collector rate of the land of village-Sharwa were Rs.1,80,000/- per acre at the time of acquisition of the land as per the evidence brought on record. RFA No.1395 of 2011 (O&M) 7 Thus, admittedly, the land was being used by the appellant-State for about 12 years before acquisition and the landowners were being paid lease money on this account. In such a situation, the view taken by the reference court cannot be found faulted with. Thus, all these appeals are dismissed on account of limitation as well as on merits. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. October 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE