RFA No. 768 of 1996 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 768 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2011 Chuhar Singh (deceased) through LRs ...Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Mr, Ivneet Singh Pabla, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the landowners. Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. This order shall dispose of a set of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 768 to 789, 1006 to 1015, 1062, 1143, 1301, 1302, 1491, 1492, 1683, 2232, 2272, 2273, 2284, 2360, 2361, 2384 to 2415, 2417 to 2422, 2424, 2471 to 2473, 2517 to 2519, 2542, 2546 and 2559 of 1996; 3, 5 to 14, 52, 55, 179, 188, 257, 400, 405 to 408, 410, 411, 414, 416 to 418, 420, 423, 425, 426, 428, 429, 432, 435, 437, 443, 445, 448, 449, 451 to 453, 476, 643 to 645, 1999 to 2001 of 1997; 933 of 1998; 321 to 332, 351, 352, 544, 899, 961, 1102, 1497 of 2000; and 2294 of 2004; as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. RFA No. 768 of 1996 2 It is a bunch of appeals, which already stood decided by this court vide judgment dated 26.4.2006. The landowners filed Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, which were disposed of vide order dated August 16, 2010, which is reproduced hereunder:- “IA 1 of 2009, filed on behalf of the petitioner in SLP (C) No.21168 of 2006, has been listed for consideration today. In the said petition, the petitioners have indicated that in another matter, the Referral Court had fixed the compensation at Rs.9,50,000/- per acre and that the same was confirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioners submit that this Special Leave Petition may also be remanded to the learned Single Judge of the High Court for taking a decision in terms of the judgment and order, which has been passed by the High Court in the case of Bhagwan Singh/Randhir Singh on 23rd December, 2008, in RFA No.2515/98. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we allow the said application and remand this matter and all the connected matters, (30 batch of matters) (which are not on board today) by taking them on board, and also Review Petition No.225 of 2006, in SLP (C) Nos.19665-19674 of 2005, to the High Court for re-consideration in terms of the judgment and order passed in Bhagwan Singh/Randhir Singh’s case.” and the matters were remitted back. Briefly, the facts of the case are that State Government vide notification dated 21.4.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire the land measuring 210.59 acre situated in villages Devi Dass Pura, Ratgal Umri and Palwal in District Kurukshetrea for the development and utilization thereof for residential and commercial purpose for carving out Sector-4, Kurukshetra. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the Collector”) assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:- RFA No. 768 of 1996 3 Sr. Name of village Chahi Barani Gair Mumkin No. (in ` ) (in ` ) (in ` ) 1. Ratgal 2,50,000/- 1,50,000/- 2,00,000/- 2. Devidasspura 2,00,000/- 1,25,000/- 1,50,000/- 3. Umri 1,10,000/- 80,000/- 85,000/- 4. Palwal 1,00,000/- 70,000/- 84,000/- Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of Act, the learned court below assessed the compensation for the acquired land for all the villages @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the landowners seeking higher valuation for the acquired land in question is that this court in RFA No.2515 of 1998 titled as State of Haryana and another Vs. Badan Singh decided on 23.12.2008 pertaining to adjoining land had upheld the award of the learned court below assessing compensation for the acquired land therein @ ` 9,50,000/- per acre. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the aforesaid case was issued on 24.3.1992, whereas in the present case, the same was issued on 21.4.1992. Both the portions of the land are adjoining to each other. However, a perusal of the judgment of this court in Badan Singh’s case (supra) shows that the acquired land therein pertained to villages Pipli and Bir Pipli. It was not disputed at the time of hearing that the aforesaid villages are located on G.T. Road (NH-1), whereas the land acquired in the present set of appeals is pertaining to revenue estates of villages Devi Dass Pura, Ratgal, Umri and Palwal in District Kurukshetra. The location thereof is beyond the land already acquired and was more than 1 KM away from GT Road as compared to the land dealt with in Badan Singh’s case (supra) before this court in the present bunch. Both the portions of land were being used for agricultural purposes, when acquired. It cannot be disputed that the land, which was located on G.T. Road upto a certain depth certainly fetched higher prices as compared to land, which is located beyond that. The amount of compensation assessed in Badan RFA No. 768 of 1996 4 Singh’s case (supra) for the land, which is located on G.T. Road is ` 9,50,000/- per acre. The compensation for the acquired land in the present set of appeals was earlier assessed by this court @ ` 7,26,000/- per acre, which is quite reasonable considering the location of the land. There is another aspect of the matter. Considering the location and value of the land even the Collector had also assessed the compensation for the land in Badan Singh’s case (supra) @ ` 4,98,172.80, whereas in the present case considering the location of the land, which was inferior as compared to the land in Badan Singh’s case (supra) the value assessed by the Collector is as under:- Sr. Name of village Chahi Barani Gair Mumkin No. (in ` ) (in ` ) (in ` ) 1. Ratgal 2,50,000/- 1,50,000/- 2,00,000/- 2. Devidasspura 2,00,000/- 1,25,000/- 1,50,000/- 3. Umri 1,10,000/- 80,000/- 85,000/- 4. Palwal 1,00,000/- 70,000/- 84,000/- For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find that there was any similarity, in location and value of the land in question with the land, the valuation of which was under consideration in Badan Singh’s case (supra). Accordingly, the landowners in the present appeal cannot be awarded same amount of compensation. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 20.05.2011 sharmila