R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : December 08, 2008 1. R.F.A No. 6 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Seema Rani and others .....Respondents. 2. R.F.A No. 2314 of 2007(O&M) Vinod Kumar and others ....Appellants Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula .....Respondent 3. R.F.A No. 2315 of 2007(O&M) Phaggu & others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 4. R.F.A No. 2316 of 2007(O&M) Amar Singh ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondents 5. R.F.A No. 2317 of 2007(O&M) Gopal Krishan ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 6. R.F.A No. 2318 of 2007(O&M) Amar Chand and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [2] 7. R.F.A No. 2319 of 2007(O&M) Karam Chand and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 8. R.F.A No. 2320 of 2007(O&M) Kadam Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 9. R.F.A No. 2321 of 2007(O&M) Suresh Raj and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 10. R.F.A No. 2322 of 2007(O&M) Siya Nand and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 11. R.F.A No. 2873 of 2007(O&M) Balbir Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 12. R.F.A No. 3051 of 2007(O&M) Karan Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [3] 13. R.F.A No. 3052 of 2007(O&M) Karan Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent 14. R.F.A No. 3053 of 2007(O&M) Dalel Singh and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 15. R.F.A No. 3604 of 2007(O&M) Narinder ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 16. R.F.A No. 3614 of 2007(O&M) Shree Thakurdwra Guniawala and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 17. R.F.A No. 3615 of 2007(O&M) Shree Thakurdwra Guniawala and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 18. R.F.A No. 3685 of 2007(O&M) Raj Pal ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [4] 19. R.F.A No. 3989 of 2007(O&M) Abdul Rehman and others ....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 20. R.F.A No. 3990 of 2007(O&M) Ram Sarup ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 21. R.F.A No. 3991 of 2007(O&M) Fakrudeen ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 22. R.F.A No. 3992 of 2007(O&M) Moh'd Yasin ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 23. R.F.A No. 4141 of 2007(O&M) Rameshwar ....Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 24. R.F.A No. 7 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Kanwar Singh and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [5] 25. R.F.A No. 8 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Ramesh Devi and others .....Respondents 26. R.F.A No. 9 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Lachhu Ram and others .....Respondents 27. R.F.A No. 10 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Kadam Singh and others .....Respondents 28. R.F.A No. 11 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana and another ....Appellants Vs. Amar Chand and others .....Respondents 29. R.F.A No. 12 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Shree Thakurdwara Guniawala and others .....Respondents 30. R.F.A No. 13 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Karam Chand and others .....Respondents 31. R.F.A No. 14 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Harpal Singh .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [6] 32. R.F.A No. 15 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Som Nath .....Respondent 33. R.F.A No. 16 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Prit Pal .....Respondent 34. R.F.A No. 17 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Shree Thakusdwara Gunjawala and others .....Respondents 35. R.F.A No. 18 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Mohan Lal and another .....Respondents 36. R.F.A No. 19 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Siya Nand and others .....Respondents 37. R.F.A No. 20 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Preeti Pal and others .....Respondents 38. R.F.A No. 21 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Krishan and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [7] 39. R.F.A No. 22 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Surat Singh .....Respondent 40. R.F.A No. 23 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Rameshwar .....Respondent 41. R.F.A No. 24 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Suresh Raj and others .....Respondents 42. R.F.A No. 25 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Surender Kumar and another .....Respondents 43. R.F.A No. 26 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Virender Kumar and another .....Respondents 44. R.F.A No. 27 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Gopal Krishan and another .....Respondents 45. R.F.A No. 28 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Smt. Kanta and another .....Respondent R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [8] 46. R.F.A No. 38 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Prem Chand and others .....Respondents 47. R.F.A No. 39 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Anil Kumar Sehgal .....Respondent 48. R.F.A No. 40 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Lal Singh and others .....Respondents 49. R.F.A No. 41 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Phaggu Ram and others .....Respondents 50. RFA No. 42 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Balbir Singh and others .....Respondents 51. R.F.A No. 142 of 2008(O&M) State of Haryana ....Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar and another .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. Ravinder Jain and Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocates for the land owners. R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [9] Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 51 appeals, as the same arise out of a common acquisition. R.F.A. Nos. 2314 to 2322, 2873, 3051 to 3053, 3604, 3614, 3615, 3685, 3989 to 3992 and 4141 of 2007 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 6 to 28, 38 to 42 and 142 of 2008 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners by the learned court below. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 28.8.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 60.94 acres situated in village Gobindpura, Hadbast No. 407, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar was acquired for construction of road in Sector 18, Jagadhri. The same was followed by notification dated 30.8.2001 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 6,00,000/- per acre. As the land owners were dissatisfied, they filed objections, which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri for consideration, who keeping in view the material placed before him, determined the market value of the land at Rs. 11,32,800/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land, which has been acquired for the purpose of constructing a circular road in the periphery of Sector 18, Parts I and II and further connecting the same with Jagadhri- Yamunanagar bye-pass is most strategically located. The area of Sector 18, Part I and Part II had already been developed in the form of residential colonies. On the main road, there were godowns of HAFED, shops, vegetable and grain market, colony of employees of Food Corporation of India, colony of Forest Department, Veterinary Hospital, Cross Breeding Centre etc. Gaba Hospital, petrol pump, Deputy Commissioner's residence, Mini Secretariat Complex and the already developed and commercialised area of Sector 17 was also situated close by. Part of the land was within the municipal limits as well. It was further submitted that the land for the purpose of development of Sector 18, Part I and Part II was acquired vide notification dated 5.4.1990, meaning thereby that even the area in the periphery of which the land was acquired for construction of road was already developed. R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [10] Though on record, six sale deeds/transfer letters were produced in the form of Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 and Ex. P27, however, at the time of arguments, reliance was placed upon merely on document (Ex. P1), whereby vide letter dated 10.6.1997, 8000 square meters of land was transferred by HUDA to Power Grid Corporation for a total sum of Rs. 1,25,13,173/- at an average price of Rs. 1,564/- per square yard. Another reliance is on the judgment in R.F.A. No. 476 of 2004 – Anoop Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.9.2008, whereby for acquisition of small piece of land vide notification dated 4.6.1997, falling in the revenue estates of villages Jagadhri and Garhi Mundon, this court assessed the value at Rs. 1,560/- per square meter. Relying upon document (Ex. P1), the rate at which the land was transferred by HUDA to Power Grid Corporation nearly at the same time when the acquisition was carried out therein, the submission is that the document (Ex. P1) and the aforesaid judgment in Anoop Kumar's case (supra) are the best piece of evidence. Even if the fact is considered that the land pertaining to both these cases was situated on the main road, a reasonable cut can be applied considering the fact that the land under acquisition was located behind that. The principle, as was applied by the learned court, for determination of fair value of the acquired land, was not correct as there was other evidence available after the acquisition of 1990, which would be more appropriate for the purpose of determination of value of the acquired land. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that reliance either on document (Ex. P1) or the judgment of this Court in Anoop Kumar's case (supra) is totally misplaced. Referring to the site plan, the submission is that both these pieces of land were situated on main Jagadhri-Yamunanagar Bye-pass, already commercialised area. The land which was transferred to Power Grid Corporation was located just adjoining the Sessions House, opposite the new Mini Secretariat and Judicial Complex. The land under consideration in Anoop Kumar's case (supra) was located more close to Jagadhri city on the main road itself. In fact, these were small pockets left out in the acquisition of land for Sector 17, way back in the year 1980, on account of which subsequent notification was required to be issued. He further submitted that in the absence of any other material on record produced by the land owners, even the reliance on award for acquisition of land for Sector 18, Part I and Part II was also totally misplaced for the purpose of grant of annual increase for such a long period. The land at the time of acquisition was being put to agricultural use and there being no other evidence on record, the award of the Reference Court be set aside and that of the Collector be upheld. R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [11] Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. A perusal of site plan at page 341 of the record shows that the land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of road in Sector 18, Part I and Part II is in its outer periphery. On the one side, it is connected with Jagadhri- Yamunanagar bye-pass near petrol pump and temple. The area close to Jagadhri- Yamunanagar bye-pass was already highly commercilised. The land acquired for Sector 17 is situated on the other side of the bye-pass which was acquired way back in the year 1980. Mini Secretariat, District Courts, Judicial Complex and Deputy Commissioner's residence are also located on the road. The land forming part of document (Ex. P1) is located on the bye-pass adjoining the Sessions House, just opposite the Mini Secretariat with District Courts and Deputy Commissioner's residence. The land which was acquired in the year 1997 and was subject-matter of Anoop Kumar's case (supra) is also located on the bye-pass towards Jagadhri. The submission of learned counsel for the land owners that they should be awarded compensation for the acquired land at the same rate, as is mentioned in document (Ex. P1) and also as was determined by this Court in Anoop Kumar's case (supra) is totally misconceived for the simple reason that there is no comparison between the acquired land vis-a-vis these two instances. As already discussed above, the land forming part of the two instances is located on main Jagadhri bye-pass in the highly commercialised area, whereas the acquired land is situated after the area developed as Sector 18, Part I and Part II, for the purpose of construction of road in its outer periphery and to connect the same from outer side with Jagadhri-Yamunanagar bye-pass. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners that a reasonable cut should be applied on the value of land so mentioned in document (Ex. P1) and determined in Anoop Kumar's case (supra) is also misconceived for the reason that an instance of a highly commercialised place cannot be equated with a land situated far behind leaving substantial portion in between and with no contiguity at all. The learned court below in the absence of any other evidence on record relied upon the award pertaining to acquisition for Sector 18, Part I and Part II, which was carried out vide notification dated 5.4.1990 and granted increase @ 12% for the period of 11 years and 4 months. In my opinion, the principle so applied by the learned court below on that account does not deserves any re- consideration. It is for the reason that when the land for development as Sector 18, Part I and Part II was acquired in the year 1990. Eleven years later, when the present acquisition was made just in the periphery of this sector, the land had R.F.A. No. 6 of 2008 [12] already been developed as planned urban area which certainly increases the value of the land in the vicinity. Though granting increase @ 12% for such a long period may not be a safe method for determination of fair value of the land in all the cases in the absence of any other evidence, however, in the peculiar facts of the present case where the acquisition was in the vicinity of already developed area, application of this principle can be said to be reasonable. Accordingly, the value of the land as assessed by the learned court below does not call for any interference except the portion of the land abutting Jagadhri-Yamuanagar bye-pass, which is dealt with separately. Admittedly, a part of the land is situated on Jagadhri-Yamunanagar bye-pass where the road for which the land was acquired is connected. As far as portion of the land abutting Jagadhri-Yamunanagar bye-pass is concerned, I deem it appropriate to rely upon the judgment of this Court in Anoop Kumar's case (supra) as location-wise, both the pieces of land has similarity. Accordingly, placing reliance thereon, for the land abutting Jagadhri- Yamunanagar bye-pass road upto a depth of 100 meters therefrom, the value is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per square meter granting increase of Rs. 440/- per square meter for the period of difference of about 4 years in two acquisitions. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the land owners are allowed only to the extent that for a depth of 100 meters on Jagadhri-Yamunanagar bye-pass, the value of the land is assessed at Rs. 2,000/- per square meter, whereas for the land behind that, the award of the learned court below is upheld. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge December 08, 2008 mk