RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... RFA No.2617 of 2001(O&M) Surinder Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.944 of 2001(O&M) Ram Sarup and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2025 of 2001(O&M) Ranjit Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.379 of 2001(O&M) Ram Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.364 of 2001(O&M) Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Regd.) ... Appellant VERSUS RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [2] State of Haryana and others ... Respondents RFA No.935 of 2001(O&M) Hari Chand (deceased) through LRs ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.377 of 2001(O&M) Sheela Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.936 of 2001(O&M) Pista Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.937 of 2001(O&M) Bhushan Parkash and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2026 of 2001(O&M) Ram Kali and others ... Appellants RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [3] VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.380 of 2001(O&M) Balbir Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.378 of 2001(O&M) Raghu Nath ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.381 of 2001(O&M) Dayal Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.382 of 2001(O&M) Har Sarup and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.383 of 2001(O&M) Raghbir Singh ... Appellant RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [4] VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.2614 of 2001(O&M) Ashok Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.2615 of 2001(O&M) Om Parkash and another ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2616 of 2001(O&M) Sunil Kumar and another ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2618 of 2001(O&M) Lajwanti ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2619 of 2001(O&M) RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [5] Joginder Pal and others ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2620 of 2001(O&M) Padam Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2613 of 2001(O&M) Mukesh Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.384 of 2001(O&M) Raj Kumar and another ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.938 of 2001(O&M) Rajinder Pal and another ... Appellants VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.2024 of 2001(O&M) Hari Ram and another ... Appellants RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [6] VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.927 of 2001(O&M) Tej Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.1424 of 2002(O&M) Jagdish Chand @ Jagdish Lal ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ... Respondent RFA No.2040 of 2004(O&M) Sunandan Kumar ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and another ... Respondents RFA No.4411 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Ranjit Singh and others ... Respondents RFA No.151 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [7] VERSUS Surinder Kumar ... Respondent RFA No.391 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Ashok Kumar ... Respondent RFA No.4412 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Ram Sarup and others ... Respondents RFA No.4400 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Sawan Ram (deceased) through LRs ... Respondent RFA No.152 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Om Parkash and another ... Respondents RFA No.4405 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Ram Singh ... Respondent RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [8] RFA No.4409 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Sanatan Dharam Sabha (Regd.) and another ... Respondents RFA No.141 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and others ... Appellants VERSUS Hari Chand (deceased) through LRs ... Respondents RFA No.4406 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Sheela Devi and others ... Respondents RFA No.4401 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Pista Devi and others ... Respondents RFA No.4403 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Ram Kali and others ... Respondents RFA No.4408 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [9] VERSUS Raj Kumar and others ... Respondents RFA No.4407 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Sunil Kumar and another ... Respondents RFA No.144 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Padam Singh ... Respondent RFA No.146 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Balbir Singh ... Respondent RFA No.148 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Dayal Kaur ... Respondent RFA No.149 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Raghbir Singh ... Respondent RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [10] RFA No.150 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Mukesh Kumar ... Respondent RFA No.4413 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Thakardawara Kalan Almaro ... Respondent RFA No.4404 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Surjit Kaur (deceased) through LRs ... Respondents RFA No.4410 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Om Parkash and others ... Respondents RFA No.386 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Saroj Bala and others ... Respondents RFA No.388 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [11] VERSUS Jeevan (deceased) through LRs ... Respondents RFA No.142 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Netaji Club (Regd.) ... Respondent RFA No.147 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Ram Chander ... Respondent RFA No.143 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Bhushan Parkash and others ... Respondents RFA No.145 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Tej Singh and another ... Respondents RFA No.389 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Joginder Pal and others ... Respondents RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [12] RFA No.387 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Rajinder Pal and another ... Respondents RFA No.385 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Har Sarup and others ... Respondents RFA No.390 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Hari Ram and another ... Respondents RFA No.829 of 2003(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Jagdish Chand @ Jagdish Lal ... Respondent RFA No.1451 of 2002(O&M) State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Kamla Devi @ Kamla Sharma ... Respondent RFA No.1452 of 2002(O&M) RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [13] State of Haryana ... Appellant VERSUS Subhash Chander and others ... Respondents RFA No.3290 of 2006(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Mam Chand and others ... Respondents AND RFA No.4402 of 2001(O&M) State of Haryana and another ... Appellants VERSUS Raghu Nath ... Respondent Decided on : November 13, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.M.L.Sarin, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate, Mr.Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Amit K.Singla, Advocate, and Mr.P.C.Dhiman, Advocate for the land-owners. Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General assisted by Ms.Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Sixty-five appeals challenging the award dated 30.08.2000, RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [14] passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala, shall stand disposed of by this one judgment, as a common issue is to be determined in all these cases. RFA Nos.2617, 944, 2025, 379, 364, 935, 377, 936, 937, 2026, 380, 378, 381, 382, 383, 2614, 2615, 2616, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2613, 384, 938, 2024 and 927 of 2001, RFA No.1424 of 2002 and RFA No.2040 of 2004 have been filed by the land-owners, whose land has been acquired, seeking enhancement of the compensation in lieu of acquisition of their pieces of land, while RFA Nos.4411, 151, 391, 4412, 4400, 152, 4405, 4409, 141, 4406, 4401, 4402, 4403, 4408, 4407, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 4413, 4404, 4410, 386, 388, 142, 147, 143, 145, 389, 387, 385, and 390 of 2001, RFA Nos.1451 and 1452 of 2002, RFA No.829 of 2003 and RFA No.3290 of 2006 have been filed by the State of Haryana, challenging the award of compensation to the claimants – land-owners, claiming it to be on higher side. However, for determination of the present controversy, the facts are being taken from RFA No.2617 of 2001. Vide notification dated 8.2.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act, the Haryana Government proposed to acquire the land situated in Hadbast No.88 of village Naraingarh and hadbast No.307 of village Milk, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. Thereafter, vide notification dated 7.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act, the said land was acquired and the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula was directed under Section 7 of the Act to start the process for the acquisition of the land in question. Notices were issued under Section 9 of the Act to the land-owners and the interested persons for assessment of compensation. The Collector after hearing the parties, vide his award dated 5.2.1992 assessed the RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [15] compensation for the land-owners of Hadbast No.88 of village Naraingarh at Rs.1,37,223/- per acre for Chai land; Rs.1,75,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land; Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Barani land, and Rs.50,000/- per acre for Banjer Kadim land. Besides this, solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and interest permissible under the Act were also granted. Feeling dissatisfied with the above compensation, the land- owners/claimants (herein referred as `the claimants') preferred references before the Collector, which were referred to the District Judge for disposal. By way of their claim references, the claimants submitted that the acquired land has high potential value, having worth more than Rs.500/- per square yard and they were entitled to get compensation as per the actual market value of the acquired land. It was further pleaded that some constructed structures and grown up trees existed on the acquired land, but the value of the same was not assessed properly. Both the parties led evidence to substantiate their respective claims. After considering the evidence on record and the rival contentions, the Additional District Judge vide his award dated 30.8.2000 assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2720/- per Marla. The amount of compensation awarded to the claimants of references bearing LAC Nos.43,46 and 69 on account of super-structures, etc. was enhanced to Rs.15,160/-, 14,060/- and Rs.16,429/-, respectively. However, both the parties, feeling dissatisfied with the above award, have preferred the instant appeals, as referred to in preceding paras. Arguments heard and record perused. On appreciation of the evidence, vide judgment of even date RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [16] passed in RFA No.2970 of 1994, the market value of the land measuring 3.21 acres situated in Hadbast No.88, Tehsil Naraingarh, has been assessed at the rate of Rs.2300/- per Marla. The land acquired in the instant case is also situated nearby the acquired land in the aforesaid case. The Trial Court as well had relied upon its judgment dated 1.4.1994 in the other case titled “Som Nath and others vs. State of Haryana” (Ex.R6) while assessing compensation in the present cases, therefore, I treat the judgment of this Court passed in RFA No.2970 of 1994, as a comparable instance for assessing the market value of the land involved in this case, which was acquired after the land covered by the aforesaid appeals. Earlier the land situated in Hadbast No.88 of village Naraingarh was acquired by issuing notification on 29.06.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein for short `the Act'), whereas, notifications acquiring the land involved in the present cases situated in Hadbast No.88 of village Naraingarh and Hadbast No.307 of village Milk was issued on 8.2.1989. As such, no discrimination could be made in the market price of the two parcels of land, acquired on different dates. However, the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that the market value of the acquired land in the present case would have substantially increased after 29.6.1986 (date of acquisition proposal notice in the previous case) till the acquisition of the present land on 8.2.1989. Consequently, the same parameters i.e, normal increase at the rate of 12% deserves to be added while assessing the market value of the land involved in the instant case. Similar view was taken in Karnail Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) RLR 77, wherein, it was observed that an increase of 12% in price deserves to be RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [17] added for the purpose of computing the actual market potential of the acquired land. Thus, while applying the principle of 12% annual increase, the market value of the acquired land could safely be determined @ 3128/- per Marla. However, while rounding the same, it is determined at Rs.3200/- per Marla at the time of the acquisition of the land. The claimants in Reference Nos.43, 46 and 69 have also sought enhancement of compensation with regard to super-structures and tube- well, etc., which were found in existence in their lands at the time of acquisition. The claimants had earlier been awarded Rs.14318/-, Rs.11911/- and Rs.14,023/-, respectively by the Collector, which was enhanced to Rs.15160/-, Rs.14060 and Rs.16429/-, respectively, by the Court below. While scrutinising the evidence, it comes out that the claimants had examined Krishan Kumar (PW3), a licensed evaluator, having an experience of over 15 years, who deposed from his report Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/C that the claimants of Ref.No.43, 46 and 69 were entitled to Rs.34,255/-, Rs.39,750/- and Rs.39,920/-, respectively. However, in order to rebut the aforesaid evidence, the State has relied upon the reports Ex.R3 to Ex.R5 of Ramphal Singh, Junior Engineer (RW2), who testified that the claimants were entitled to Rs.14318/-, Rs.19911/- and Rs.14023/-, respectively, for the super structures made by them. He has determined the compensation while applying the rates noted in the Haryana Government Scheduled Rates, 1988 for the purpose of evaluating the worth of super structures belonging to the claimants. These reports were prepared on the basis of the Scheduled RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [18] Rates as per notification published just before the scheduled rates came into force in the year 1989, whereas, the reports made by Krishan Kumar (PW3) are based on no parameters, but flat rates have been mentioned by the witness. As such, the testimony of Krishan Kumar (PW3) is of no consequence. Thus, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the claimants relating to LAC Case No.43, 46 and 69 and hold that the Reference Court rightly awarded the compensation in this regard. As regards the award with regard to trees, the Collector awarded compensation on the basis of the report Ex.R1 made by Amrik Singh, who in his capacity as Junior Engineer, Horticulture Wing, Haryana Urban Development Authority determined the market value of the trees by giving an elaborate report. Thus, it appears that the Collector rightly relied upon this report and properly assessed the market value of the trees and, thus, there is no ground to make any enhancement in the same. In the wake of the above discussion, I partly accept RFA Nos.2617, 944, 2025, 379, 364, 935, 377, 936, 937, 2026, 380, 378, 381, 382, 383, 2614, 2615, 2616, 2618, 2619, 2620, 2613, 384, 938, 2024 and 927 of 2001, RFA No.1424 of 2002 and RFA No.2040 of 2004, and modify the impugned award to the extent that the claimants/ land-owners are entitled to Rs.3200/- per Marla of the land alongwith all other statutory benefits. However, I find no reason to enhance the compensation with regard to super structures and the trees. Consequently, RFA Nos.4411, 151, 391, 4412, 4400, 152, 4405, 4409, 141, 4406, 4401, 4402, 4403, 4408, 4407, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150, 4413, 4404, 4410, 386, 388, 142, 147, 143, 145, 389, 387, 385, and RFA No.2617 of 2001 (O&M) [19] 390 of 2001, RFA Nos.1451 and 1452 of 2002, RFA No.829 of 2003 and RFA No.3290 of 2006, filed by the State of Haryana fail and the same are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 13, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE