R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 5, 2008 (1) R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 Hukam Chand .. Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents (2) RFA No.3240 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Khan Chand Bajaj (deceased) through LRs and another ...Respondents (3) RFA No.3241 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ram Nath and another ...Respondents (4) RFA No.3242 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus C.L. Bajaj and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (5) RFA No.3243 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sudarshan Kumari and another ...Respondents (6) RFA No.3244 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Parbati (deceased) through LRs and another ...Respondents (7) RFA No.3245 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ram Kishan and another ...Respondents (8) RFA No.3246 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ganeshi Bai and another ...Respondents (9) RFA No.3247 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Gulshan Rai Bajaj and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (10) RFA No.3248 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Krishna Kumari and another ...Respondents (11) RFA No.3249 of 1999 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Harbans Lal Bajaj and another ...Respondents (12) RFA No.3583 of 1999 C.L. Bajaj ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents (13) RFA No.3591 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Khan Chand Bajaj (deceased) through LRs and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (14) RFA No.3592 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus C.L.Bajaj and another ...Respondents (15) RFA No.3593 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus R.N.Kandu and another ...Respondents (16) RFA No.3594 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Krishna Kumari and another ...Respondents (17) RFA No.3595 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Ram Kishan and another ...Respondents (18) RFA No.3596 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Parbati (deceased) through LRs and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (19) RFA No.3597 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Ganeshi Bai and another ...Respondents (20) RFA No.3598 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Harbans Lal Bajaj and another ...Respondents (21) RFA No.3599 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Gulshan Rai Bajaj and another ...Respondents (22) RFA No.3600 of 1999 State of Haryana ...Appellant Versus Sudarshan Kumari and another ...Respondents (23) RFA No.116 of 2000 R.N.Kundu ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (24) RFA No.117 of 2000 Ram Kishan ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents (25) RFA No.153 of 2000 Parbati (deceased) through LRs ...Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents (26) RFA No.154 of 2000 Gulshan Rai Bajaj ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents (27) RFA No.155 of 2000 Sudarshan Kumari ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents (28) RFA No.156 of 2000 Harbans Lal Bajaj ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (29) RFA No.157 of 2000 Krishna Kumari ...Appellant versus Stateof Haryana and another ...Respondents. (30) RFA No.158 of 2000 Ganeshi Bai ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents (31) RFA No.179 of 2000 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant versus Hukam Chand and others ...Respondents (32) RFA No.273 of 2000 State of Haryana and another ...Appellants Versus Hukam Chand and another ...Respondents R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] (33) RFA No.300 of 2000 Smt. Kaushlya Devi and others ... Appellants Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/Shri Harkesh Manuja,Vikram Mann for Mr. Hemant Saini, C.B. Goel, Binayjeet Sheoran and Ms. Sarpeet Kaur for Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate, Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned 33 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 3583, 3719 of 1999, 116, 117, 153 to 158 and 300 of 2000 have been filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 3591 to 3600 of 1999 and 273 of 2000 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners. Similar prayer has been made by Indian Oil Corporation in R.F.A. Nos. 3240 to 3249 of 1999 and 179 of 2000. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 40.63 acres situated within the revenue estate of Village Sithana, Hadbast No. 14, Tehsil Panipat was acquired vide notification dated 25.5.1993, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') for resettlement of oustees of village Baholi in the area of Village Sithana, District Panipat. The same was followed by notification dated 21.9.1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide his award dated 7.5.1994, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 1,72,000/- per acre. The learned R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] Additional District Judge, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, awarded compensation @ Rs. 83/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has estimated the value of the acquired land without appreciating the material placed on record by them in the form of sale deeds (Ex. P2 to Ex. P5). Sale deed (Ex. P2) whereby one marla of land was sold on 4.1.1993 was pertaining to the same village where average price was Rs. 733.33 per square yard. Vide sale deed (Ex. P3), land measuring one kanal was sold at an average price of Rs. 247/- per square yard. If the average of both these sale deeds is taken, the same comes to Rs. 490/- per square yard and even if a cut of 33% is applied, the value of the acquired land should be determined at Rs. 350/- per square yard. He further referred to the statements of the witness showing the location of the land which is on the road leading to Panipat Refinery. The land in question is situated close to the city of Panipat. Refinery is almost two kilometers ahead thereof. In response to the arguments of the land owners, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the learned court below has failed to consider the material placed on record by the State in the form of sale deeds (Ex. RA to Ex. RG), vide which big chunks of land were sold at an average price of Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 1,87,000/- per acre. The land pertaining thereto is situated in close vicinity of the acquired land. However, these sale deeds produced by the State were not considered only for the reason that vendors and the vendees had not been produced. However, keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.Ram Singh, (2001) 6 SCC 254, such a view expressed by the learned court below cannot stand judicial scrutiny and if the sale deeds produced by the State are considered, the value of the land as determined by the learned court below, would require substantial reduction what to talk of increase as is sought to be claimed by the land owners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A perusal of paragraph 15 of the impugned award shows that sale deeds (Ex. RA to Ex. RG) pertaining to big chunks of land were not considered by the learned Court below relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kumari Veeraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1995) 4 SCC 136; A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad v. P. Venkaiah, AIR 1997 SC 2600 and Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasive Rao, AIR 1997 SC 2625, whereas the same was held to be not good law subsequently in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2001) 6 SCC 254. The enunciation of law in Ram Singh's case (supra) has not been R.F.A. No. 3719 of 1999 [Page numbers] disputed by learned counsel appearing for the land owners. In view of the enunciation of law in Ram Singh's case (supra), the sale deeds, as produced by the State, were required to be considered for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. Certified copy of the sale deed can very well be considered as relevant piece of evidence without the parties to the document having been examined in court. However, that does not preclude the court from rejecting the transaction itself as being mala fide or sham provided such a stand is taken before the Court. However, the same having not been considered at all and the value having been determined only on the basis of sale deeds produced by the land owners, in my opinion, the same would require further consideration by the learned Reference Court. Accordingly, all these matters are remanded back to the Reference Court for consideration of the matter fresh on the basis of the material already placed on record by the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Panipat on 13.1.2009 who can either hear the references himself or can assign the same to any other Additional District Judge. As the acquisition in the present case is pertaining to the year 1993, it would be appreciated if the matter is disposed of at an early date. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.11.2008 mk