R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 22,2008 1. R. F. A. No. 3575 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ..... Appellants vs Smt. Bimla and another .... Respondents 2. R. F. A. No. 1053 of 1992 (O&M) State of Haryana .. Appellant vs Om Parkash .... Respondent 3. R. F. A. No. 1156 of 1992 (O&M) Om Parkash .. Appellant vs State of Haryana .. Respondent 4. R. F. A. No. 1889 of 1992 (O&M) Ram Singh (deceased) through LRs. ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents 5. R. F. A. No. 2148 of 1992 (O&M) Balbir Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents 6.. R. F. A. No. 2151 of 1992 (O&M) Bir Singh ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents 7 R. F. A. No. 2303 of 1992 (O&M) Balbir Singh ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [2] 8. R. F. A. No. 2469 of 1992 (O&M) Arvind Kumar Kharanta ..... Appellant vs State of Haryana and another .... Respondents 9. R. F. A. No. 3576 of 1992 (O&M) Haryana State and another ..... Appellants vs Smt. Shanti Devi and another .... Respondents 10. R. F. A. No. 3792 of 1992 (O&M) Mahinder Kaur ..... Appellant vs The State of Haryana and another .... Respondents 11. R. F. A. No. 28 of 1993 and Cross-objection No. 67/C-I of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana ..... Appellant vs Smt. Saraswati .... Respondent 12. R. F. A. No. 365 of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State ..... Appellant vs Ghansham Dass and others .... Respondents 13. R. F. A. No. 366 of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State ..... Appellant vs Arjan Singh and others .... Respondents 14. R. F. A. No. 367 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and others ..... Appellants vs Bimla Devi .... Respondent 15. R. F. A. No. 368 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Ram Singh .... Respondent R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [3] 16. R. F. A. No. 369 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Amar Singh .... Respondent 17. R. F. A. No. 370 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Anand Dev (deceased) and others .... Respondents 18. R. F. A. No. 371 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Mahinder Kaur .... Respondent 19. R. F. A. No. 372 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Bir Singh .... Respondent 20. R. F. A. No. 373 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Balbir Singh .... Respondent 21. R. F. A. No. 374 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Pema Ram .... Respondent 22. R. F. A. No. 375 of 1993 (O&M) State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Balbir Singh .... Respondent 23. R. F. A. No. 376 of 1993 (O&M) Haryana State ..... Appellant vs Arvind Kumar Kharanta .... Respondent 24. R. F. A. No. 438 of 1995 (O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant vs Prabhu Dayal Grover and others ... Respondents R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [4] 25. R. F. A. No. 805 of 1995 (O&M) Prabhu Dayal Grover and others ... Appellant vs The State of Haryana ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Mr. Rajbir Wasu and Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocates for the land owners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of above mentioned 25 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. R.F.A. Nos. 1053, 3575, 3576 of 1992, 28, 365 to 376 of 1993, 438 of 1995 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below. R.F.A. Nos. 1156, 1889, 2148, 2151, 2303, 2469, 3792 of 1992 and 805 of 1995 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. In R.F.A. No. 28 of 1993, the land owners have filed cross objections praying for further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 25.3.1983, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 1033 kanals and 18 marlas of land situated in village Hissar, District Hissar for the purpose of development as residential and commercial area. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 17.3.1986, determined the market value of land at Rs. 9.99 per square yard. However, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 100/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the claim made by the land owners in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 164 of 1991—Roop Basant v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 24.2.1994, whereby a set of appeals arising out of the same acquisition were considered and the compensation payable to the land owners was enhanced from R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [5] Rs. 100/- to Rs. 120/- per square yard. Against Single Bench judgment of this Court in Roop Basant's case (supra), Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 22.9.1995, which was upheld even by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 31.7.1996 in S.L.P.(C) No. 14065-81 of 1996. Accordingly, the present appeals need to be decided in the same terms. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land owners filed applications for production of additional evidence on record, in terms of which it can very well be said that the value, as determined by the learned court below, even though considered by this Court in Roop Basant's case (supra) earlier, still deserves increase further, as each case has to be decided on its own merits on the basis of evidence produced on record. Reliance was also placed on a subsequent award of the learned court below arising out of a reference pertaining to the same acquisition, where the value was determined at Rs. 211/- per square yard. Relying thereupon, the prayer is that the land owners herein also should be granted compensation at the same rate. It was further submitted that in fact the land owned by the land owners in the present case is situated on the main road, whereas the set of appeals considered by this Court in Roop Basant's case (supra) were pertaining to the land which was located off the road and it is for this reason that the land owners in the present case are praying for grant of more compensation and further it is for this reason only that in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case (subject-matter of R.F.A. No. 805 of 1995), the learned Reference Court determined the compensation payable to them at Rs. 211/- per square yard. Accordingly, all the land owners in the present case should be paid compensation at the same rate. However, from the material on record, learned counsel was not able to point out that the appeals, under consideration before this Court on earlier occasion, as were decided in Roop Basant's case (supra), were only pertaining to the land which was located off the main road and in the present set of appeals, all the cases are of the land owners whose land is located on the road. Even from the impugned award also, it would be pointed out that these cases were segregated for this reason. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As far as applications of the land owners for production of additional evidence are concerned, the same have been considered and rejected by separate order passed today. As a result thereof, this court is left only with the impugned award of the learned court below, the judgment of this Court in Roop Basant's case (supra) dealing with the question of determination of fair value of the land acquired vide same notification and some additional contentions raised. R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [6] A perusal of the judgment in Roop Basant's case (supra) shows that this Court was fully conscious of the fact that the land in question was located on tri-junction of Delhi-Hissar and Hissar-Jaipur road near Dabra Chowk, as it was in the evidence of the land owners that it is strategically located land which had substantial value on the date of acquisition and future potential as well. There is nothing on record in the impugned award to suggest that set of cases, being dealt with now, were separated for the reason that the land pertaining thereto was located on the main road. Reliance on the award in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case (supra) is also totally misconceived and so the contention of learned counsel for the land owners, wherein it was sought to be suggested that the land owners therein were granted compensation @ Rs. 211/- per square yard only on the ground that their land was located on the main road, rather, a perusal of paragraph 13 therein shows that the learned court below relied upon sale deed (Ex. P3) for land measuring 180 square yards, where consideration money paid was at the rate of Rs. 211/- per square yard and considering the fact that the land owned by the petitioners in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case (supra) was merely 506 square yards, no cut was applied and same amount of compensation was directed to be paid. The fact that big chunk of land measuring 1033 kanals and 18 marlas was acquired vide same notification was not considered at all. Learned counsel for the land owners had not been able to point out any principle for determination of fair value of a large chunk of land, considering the factum of land owned by each owner independently vis-a-vis the evidence led. The principle applied by the learned court below in Prabhu Dayal Grover's case (supra) cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, I have no option but to reject the contention of learned counsel for the land owners to grant them compensation at the same rate and also accept the appeal, i.e., R.F.A. No. 438 of 1995 filed by the State, setting aside the impugned award therein granting compensation @ Rs. 211/- per square yard. In the above factual matrix, having rejected the additional contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners, this court is left with only an earlier judgment of this Court in Roop Basant's case (supra), where this court had determined the fair value of the acquired land vide same notification at Rs. 120/- per square yard. The judgment was upheld upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as has already been noticed above. Accordingly, for the reasons stated therein, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed to the extent that the compensation payable for the acquired land is determined at Rs. 120/- per square yard. R.F.A No. 805 of 1995 filed by Prabhu Dayal Grover is dismissed. R.F.A. No. 3575 of 1992 [7] The cross appeal bearing RFA No. 438 of 1995 filed by the State in the case of Prabhu Dayal Grover is accepted to the extent that the compensation as determined by the learned court below at Rs. 211/- per square yard is reduced to Rs. 120/- per square yard in line with the judgment of this Court in Roop Basant's case (supra). The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. R.F.A. No. 1156 of 1992 In the present case, a small piece of land measuring one kanal and 6- 1/2 marlas was acquired vide notification dated 20.11.1984. The value of the land acquired in the vicinity vide notification dated 25.3.1983 has been assessed at Rs. 120/- per square yard and considering the difference of period involved in the two notifications, I deem it appropriate to grant the land owners herein an annual increase of 10%. Accordingly, adding another sum of Rs. 20/- per square yard therein, the compensation payable to them is assessed at Rs. 140/- per square yard. The land owner shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to him under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 22 , 2008 mk