R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 17,2008 1. R. F. A No. 2787 of 1989 (O&M) Ujagar Singh ..... Appellant vs The Haryana State and another ... Respondents 2. R. F. A No. 2783 of 1989 (O&M) Sadhu Singh (deceased) through LRs .. Appellants vs The Haryana State and another ... Respondents 3. R. F. A No. 2784 of 1989 (O&M) Didar Singh ..... Appellant vs The Haryana State and another ... Respondents 4. R. F. A No. 2785 of 1989 (O&M) Khushal Singh ..... Appellant vs The Haryana State and another ... Respondents 5. R. F. A No. 2786 of 1989 (O&M) Sohan Singh ..... Appellant vs The Haryana State and another ... Respondents 6. R. F. A No. 2945 of 1989 (O&M) The Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Sohan Singh ..... Respondent 7. R. F. A No. 2946 of 1989 (O&M) The Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Didar Singh ..... Respondent 8. R. F. A No. 2947 of 1989 (O&M) The Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Sadhu Singh ..... Respondent R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989 [2] 9. R. F. A No. 2948 of 1989 (O&M) The Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Khushal Singh ..... Respondent 10. R. F. A No. 2985 of 1989 (O&M) The Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Ujagar Singh ..... Respondent 11. R. F. A No. 3088 of 1989 and Cross-objection No. 10/C-I of 2003 (O&M) The Haryana State and another ... Appellants vs Megh Raj (deceased) through LRs. ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. V. K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. I. S. Pabla, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. S. C. Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditi Jaiswal, Advocate for Kurukshetra Development Board. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of a bunch of 11 appeals, bearing R.F.A. Nos. 2783 to 2787, 2945 to 2948, 2985 and 3088 of 1989, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 2787, 2783 to 2786 of 1989 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of the compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 2945 to 2948, 2985 and 3088 of 1989 have been filed by the State for reduction of the compensation awarded to the land owners. In R.F.A. No. 3088 of 1989, the land owners have filed cross- objections seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989. R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989 [3] Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 7.2.1986, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land measuring 33 acres and 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Darra Kalan, Thanesar for foot paths and market. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide his award dated 27.7.1987, determined the market value of land as under: “Chahi/Nehri land Rs. 70,000/- per acre Barani land Rs. 60,000/- per acre Banjar Jadid land Rs. 50,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim land Rs. 45,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin and other land Rs. 40,000/- per acre Abadi land Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre The Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, accepted the claim of the appellants and determined the market value @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Gair mumkin land. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits at a strategic place where famous Braham Sarovar Dam is situated at Kurukshetra. The land had great potential for being used for commercial purposes being situated close to Braham Sarovar Dham, where the land is in high demand because there various religious functions take place. Even otherwise, Kurukshetra is a historical place on the world tourism map. He further submitted that sale deeds (Ex. P.2, Ex. P8 to Ex. P.12 and Ex. P.17 to Ex. P.21) produced by the appellants have not been considered at all in terms of which value of the land in the vicinity was ranging from Rs. 100/- per square yard to Rs. 166.33 per square yard, whereas the learned court below has granted merely Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for gair mumkin kind of land. Further reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 151 of 1992 –Sucha Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 24.7.2008, whereby for the adjoining land acquired vide notifications dated 29.10.1986, 13.9.1987 and 15.9.1987, this Court assessed the value @ Rs. 100/- per square yard. Copy thereof has been placed on record with an application along with a site plan showing the location of the land. The submission is that once there is a binding judicial precedent available on record in the form of judgment in R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989 [4] Sucha Singh's case (supra), where value of the acquired land therein has been assessed for the acquisition carried out just 8 months after the acquisition in the present case, a reasonable cut can be applied and the value of the acquired land can be determined in this case which, in any case, deserves increase considering the award of the learned court below which is quite on lower side. It was submitted that the land in the vicinity had already been developed either for the purpose of beautification of the area close to Braham Sarover Dham. On the other side of the acquired land was grain market and other thickly populated urbanised area. The land in question was highly potential for being developed as commercial area being close to Braham Sarover. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the issue under consideration in the judgment of this Court in Sucha Singh's case (supra) was pertaining to the acquisition of land in the vicinity of the land under consideration in the present set of appeals. However, as far as reliance on sale deeds, produced by the appellants, is concerned, the submission is that the same are not located on any site plan produced by the appellants, hence cannot be considered as such, as those are for small plots and must be located in highly populated abadi area. The factum about the land being in municipal area is not in dispute. The location of the acquired land and the land under consideration in Sucha Singh's case (supra) is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of the site plan shows that the land acquired vide notification dated 7.2.1986, which is under consideration in the present set of appeals, is adjoining the land acquired vide notifications dated 29.10.1986, 13.9.1987 and 15.9.1987. The entire land, as mentioned above, abuts Braham Sarover Dam. The acquisition is for the purpose of construction of foot paths and market. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Sucha Singh's case (supra) shows that the value of the land acquired vide notifications dated 29.10.1986, 13.9.1987 and 15.9.1987 was determined at Rs. 100/- per square yard. The acquisition in the present case is 8 months and 22 days before the date of first notification dated 29.10.1986 and about one year and 7 months before the subsequent notifications dated 13.9.1987 and 15.9.1987. Accordingly, a reasonable cut has to be applied for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land in the present case as the same is also situated just in the vicinity. In my considered opinion, as the land in question is situated within the municipal limits of Kurukshetra and further situated at a strategic and historical important place, i.e., R.F.A. No. 2787 of 1989 [5] Braham Sarover, where the land has its own unique value, it would be appropriate to apply a cut of 10% therefrom. Accordingly, the value of the acquired land in the present case is determined at Rs. 90/- per square yard. The appellants shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits, as are available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge November 17, 2008 mk