RFA No. 1785 of 1997 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 1785 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision : 04.4.2011 State of Haryana and another ...Appellants vs Sudhir Kumar and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1785 to 1790, 1900, 1948, 1949 of 1997, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana has filed the appeals seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that State of Haryana vide notification dated 23.5.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land situated within the revenue estate of Hisar, Hadbast No. 46, for development and utilisation thereof as residential area at Hisar. The same was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.11.1984. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') vide award dated 17.3.1996 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 48,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the awards of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land for different khasra numbers ranging from @ ` 120/- per square yard to ` 155/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned before this court. RFA No. 1785 of 1997 (2) Learned counsel for the State submitted that the manner in which the learned court below has dealt with the left over cases pertaining to valuation of land shows that either the Presiding Officer was totally ignorant about the settled principles for determination of the value of the land or there were other reasons best known to him. It is not in dispute that prior to the decision of the reference by the learned court below, a bunch of cases pertaining to the same acquisition had already been decided by this court vide detailed judgment in RFA No. 164 of 1991 Roop Basant vs State of Haryana and another decided on 24.2.1994, assessing the compensation @ ` 120/- per square yard. However, still the learned court below in the present case assessed the compensation for small-small portions of land at different rates ranging from ` 120/- to ` 155/- per square yard. This principle of assessment of compensation for particular khasra numbers at different rates is totally unknown in law as far as the valuation of big chunk of acquired land is concerned. In fact, earlier also in one case arising out of same acquisition the learned court below had assessed the compensation for a small portion of land @ ` 211/- per square yard which was set aside by this court vide detailed judgment in RFA No. 3575 of 1992 – Haryana State and another vs Smt. Bimla and another, decided on 22.12.2008. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the value of the acquired land in the present case deserves to be assessed @ ` 120/- per square yard. It was further submitted that against the 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. He further submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.5.1983. The Collector announced the award on 17.3.1996 whereas the objections were filed by the landowners quite late. Though the State had raised the issue of limitation, however, the same was decided against it even though the landowners had not been able to justify that the objections filed by them were within limitation. RFA No. 1785 of 1997 (3) Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the relevant referred record. The undisputed facts as are available on record are that a bunch of cases pertaining to the acquisition in question were dealt with by this court vide detailed judgment in Roop Basant's case (supra). While assessing the compensation for the acquired land @ ` 120/- per square yard, this court had noticed entire facts regarding the location and potentiality of the land. It was noticed therein that the acquired land was located on tri-junction of Delhi-Hissar and Hissar-Jaipur road near Dabra Chowk and was forming part of the Municipal Limits of Hissar. Number of sale-deeds produced on record by the landowners were also considered and it was on a consideration of the material produced on record that the compensation for the acquired land was assessed. The Single Bench judgment of this court in Roop Basant's case (supra) was challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed on 22.9.1995. The aforesaid judgment in Roop Basant's case (supra), was further challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which was upheld vide order dated 1.7.1996 passed in S.L.P.(C) No. 14065-81 of 1996. There is substantial weight in the argument of learned counsel for the State that the manner in which the amount of compensation has been assessed by the learned court below in the present set of appeals by referring khasra numbers for awarding different rates of compensation, is totally unknown to law especially keeping in view the fact that large number of cases pertaining to same acquisition had already been decided by this court regarding valuation of the acquired land. Learned court below awarded different rates of compensation for different khasra numbers referring to their location from main road. There is no such principle for assessment of compensation in the land acquisition cases. Entire chunk is either assessed at the same rate or at different rates considering the quality of land or applying belting system. RFA No. 1785 of 1997 (4) In the present case different rates were assessed by the learned court below with reference to their khasra numbers, knowing the fact that bunch of cases pertaining to same acquisition have already been decided by this court, which may be including the cases pertaining to land adjoining to the khasra numbers for which the assessment was being made by the learned court below. This can simply be termed as over reaching the judgment of this court which was binding on the learned court below in the hierarchy of judicial system. This conduct of the concerned officer certainly needs to be probed further, for which the matter be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) High Court as apparently this cannot be said to be bonafide. There is something more which is visible to the naked eyes. However, following the judgment of this court in Roop Basant's case (supra), the landowners in the present set of appeals are entitled to compensation @ ` 120/- per square yard along with statutory benefits available under the Act. The impugned awards of the learned court below are modified to the extent mentioned above. As far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the State pertaining to objections filed by the landowners being delayed is concerned, the same is merely to be noticed and rejected considering the fact that the claim by the landowners was that they came to know about the award of the Collector only in December 1994 and it was immediately thereafter that the objections were filed. It was also not disputed that the landowners had withdrawn the compensation also in 1995. They were never served with any notice either under Section 9 or 11 of the Act. Their claim to that effect could not be rebutted by the State by leading any evidence showing either the presence of the landowners at the time of announcement of award or service of notice on them. In the absence thereof, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in holding the references to be within limitation. The appeals are disposed of. RFA No. 1785 of 1997 (5) A copy of the order be sent to the Registrar (Vigilance) High Court to enquire into the matter, as observed in the judgment. 04.4.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge