In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 776 of 2000 Date of decision: May 1, 2009 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Budhari and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 777 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Nathi Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 778 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Nathi Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 779 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Mool Chand and others ... Respondents LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -2- L.P.A. No. 780 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Brij Lal and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 781 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Ram Dei and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 782 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Hari Chand and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 783 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Mehkam Singh and others ... Respondents LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -3- L.P.A. No. 784 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Raghu Nath Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 785 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Rajinder Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 786 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Narain Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 787 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Sri Chand and others ... Respondents LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -4- L.P.A. No. 788 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Mam Chand and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 791 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Tek Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 911 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Man Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 912 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Bholi and others ... Respondents LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -5- L.P.A. No. 913 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Lakhi and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 914 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Dharam Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 915 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Chiranji and another ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 916 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Baljit Singh and others ... Respondents LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -6- L.P.A. No. 917 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Khubi Ram and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 918 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Amar Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 919 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Prem Chand and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No.920 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Nanak Chand and others ... Respondents LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -7- L.P.A. No. 921 of 2000 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Rattan Singh and others ... Respondents L.P.A. No. 922 of 2002 M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... Appellant Vs. Singh Ram and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Advocate for appellant. Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana. Mr. V.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate. A.N. Jindal, J This judgment shall dispose of 26 connected matters being L.P.A. Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and 911 to 922 of 2002, having arisen out of the common judgment dated 3.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, vide which the claimants were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.30/- per square yard along with all the statutory benefits as permissible under law, on account of acquisition of the land measuring 764 kanals 18 marlas in the revenue estate of village Payala, Hadbast No.54, Tehsil Faridabad, for construction of Liquified Petroleum Gas, Bottling LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -8- Plant to be set up by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein referred as “the Act”) was issued on 11.1.1985 and thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.5.1985. The Collector Land Acquisition, vide his award dated 10.12.1985, assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.55,000/- per acre which comes to Rs.11/- per square yard. Being dissatisfied, the claimants preferred references under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Faridabad, who vide his award dated 11.2.1993, after recording evidence, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.30/- per square yards, which comes to nearly Rs.1,45,200/- per acre. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation (herein referred as 'the appellant-corporation”) was not party to the reference, yet, on the application moved by it, the later was impleaded as party to the reference against the judgment of District Judge dated 11.2.1993. The appellant-corporation and State of Haryana preferred separate appeals against the award claiming the same to be on the higher side, at the same time, the claimants also sought enhancement of the compensation amount by way of filing separate appeals. It would be pertinent to mention here the L.P.A. No. 967 preferred by Budhari and others came up before Division Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Judges, while dismissing the appeals observed as under :- “Present: Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. In pursuance of the last order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants candidly states at the Bar LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -9- that he could not find any material for justification of further enhancement of compensation. He, however, contends that disposal of this appeal may be deferred till final hearing of the appeal filed by M/s Bharat Petroleum which stand admitted. This request is declined. In the appeal preferred by M/s Bharat Petroleum grievance is made against enhancement and prayer is made for reduction of the amount of compensation. Finding no merit in the appeal, we need not go into the question of delay in refiling the appeal. Dismissed.” State had also preferred L.P.A. which have not so far been listed for hearing. In this appeal by M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation for decreasing the market value, the question again to be determined in the appeals is “whether the award determining the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.30/- per square yards by the learned Single Judge was justified.” Before adverting to the issue, it needs to be recorded that the petitioners (claimants) had examined only one witness Sukhi Ram (PW1) and had produced on record mutation Ex.A.1 to A.3; copies of jamabandi and khasra girdawri Ex. A8 and A9, sale deeds Ex.A.4, Ex.A10 to Ex.A15; copies of the awards Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 passed by the Collector in respect of the acquisition of land in the nearby villages. To the contrary, the respondents had examined Rahmat Khan Patwari (RW1), who produced Aks Shijra Ex.R1. Partap Singh Clerk (RW2) who produced on record copies of the sale deeds Ex.R2 to Ex.R6. LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -10- First of all regarding technical objection that when the admissibility of the sale deeds Ex.R2 to Ex.R6 produced by the parties, the law is no more res-integra in view of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in case Land Revenue Officer vs. Narosaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117.. In view of the applicability of the Section 51-A of the Act, certified copies of the sale deeds can be accepted as admissible evidence to prove the market value of the property. As such, the judgments as relied upon by the learned Single Judge are not applicable. Thus, there is no handicap for us to examine sale deeds Ex.A.4, Ex.A.10 to Ex.A.15 and Ex.R2 to Ex.R6, to determine the market value of the land. On examination of the sale deeds, coupled with the other evidence, we are of the view that the market value of the land cannot be determined less than Rs.30/- per square yards, as assessed by the learned Single Judge and we need not to comment if the market value could be enhanced as the appeals preferred by the claimants have already been dismissed. Besides the other evidence, the predominant factor which excites us to uphold the judgment is that the claimants mainly placed reliance upon Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7, which are awards passed by the learned Collector for acquisition of the land in village Asawati and Jharsantly dated 12.12.1991 and 18.12.1991 respectively vide which the Collector awarded compensation at some higher rate. The said awards were passed depending upon the nature, quality and productivity of that land. But, again since the appeals of the claimants have already been dismissed, therefore, no it would amount to reopening of the earlier judgments. District Judge, Faridabad as well as the learned Single Judge LPA Nos. 776 to 788 and 791 of 2000 and LPA Nos. 911 to 922 of 2002 -11- after appreciation of the entire evidence and after taking into consideration the sale deeds and mutations on the record, appear to have rightly assessed the compensation @ Rs.30/- per square yards. While examining the case, no plausible reasons could be assigned for decreasing the market value of the land. The land acquired was used by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for commercial purpose and now prices of the land have increased many fold, as such, we are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant- corporation. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. (Uma Nath Singh) (A.N. Jindal) Judge Judge May 1, 2009 deepak