RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 1- In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. RFA No. 2213 of 1995 Decided on 27.5.2009. Kasturi Lal and others --Appellants Vs. The State of Haryana and others -- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar,Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Mrigank Sharma,Advocate for the appellants in RFA Nos.2347 of 1996 and 585 of 1997. Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General,Haryana, with Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG,Haryana, for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of 146 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2213 of 1995, 1603, 1740, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1916, 1997, 1782, 908, 1755, 26, 27, 44, 125, 126, 131, 132, 155, 167, 168, 187, 188, 249, 250, 251, 273, 274, 297, 298, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 423, 424, 483, 527, 528, 529, 630, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956, 957, 958, 1098, 1099, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1443, 1551, 1552, 1553, 1554, 1590, 1591,1592, 1593, 1594, 1595, 1596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1602,1606, 1647, RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 2- 1968, 2166, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2282, 2283 of 1996, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2280, 2276, 2277, 2405,2430 of 1995,186 of 1997, 3586, 3587 of 1999, 1796,1814 of 2000, 792 of 2001, 3202, 3203, 3204, 3205, 3206, 3207, 3208, 3209, 3210, 3211, 3212, 3213, 3214, 3215, 3216, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222,3223, 3224, 3225, 3226, 3227 of 2007, filed by the claimants and the State of Haryana, against the judgment of learned Addl . District Judge, Panipat dated 12.8.1995 and RFA Nos.2347 of 1996 and 585 of 1997 filed by the claimants against the judgment of learned Addl.District Judge,Panipat dated 14.6.1996, as identical question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, However, the facts are extracted from RFA No.2213 of 1995 (Kasturi Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others). Vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), dated 10.5.1989, published in the Haryana Government (Extra-Ordinary) Gazette dated 10.6.1989, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, published on 09.5.1990, an area falling in villages Kabri (31.34 acres); Faridpur (68.58 acres); Sarai Bachhra (47.92 acres); Patti Magdum Jadgan (5.13 acres) and Patti Taraf Insar (334.15 acres), total measuring 487.12 acres was notified, but in fact, land in village Kabri (28.85 acres) Faridpur (11.22 acres) Sarai Bachhra, (30.08 acres), Patti Magdum Jadgan (3.86 acres) and Patti Taraf Insar (298.25 acres) (total 372.26 acres of land), was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential, commercial, industrial and Institutional area in Sectors 6,7 and 8,at Panipat. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula (for short, the Collector) vide his award No.4 for the year 1992-93, classified RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 3- the acquired land as under:- Village:Kabri Kanal Marla Chahi:- 212 15 Gair Mumkin:- 18 1 Total: ------------------- 230 16 (28.85 acres) ------------------- Village:Faridpur Chahi:- 25 0 Gair Mumkin:- 39 13 Banzar Qadim:- 25 3 Total: ------------------- 89 16 (11.22 acres) ------------------- Village:Sarai Bachhra Chahi:- 207 1 Gair Mumkin:- 7 14 Banzar Qadim:- 25 18 Total: ------------------- 240 13 (30.08 acres) ------------------- Village:-Patti Magdum Chahi:- 29 7 Jadgan Gair Mumkin:- 1 10 Total: ------------------- 30 17 (3.86 acres) ------------------ B B Village: Patti Taraf Insar:Chahi 1095 3 Gair Mumkin:- 334 13 Banzar Qdim:- 1 16 ------------------- Total: 1431 12 (298.25 acres) ------------------- G.Total: 372.26 acres. - - - - - - - - - - - - The Collector then awarded compensation of the acquired land as under:- Village: Kabri Chahi Rs.1,75,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs.1,00,000/- per acre Village: Faridpur Chahi Rs.2,00,000/-per acre Gair Mumkin: Rs.1,00,000/-per acre Village: Sarai BachhraChahi Rs.2,00,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin: Rs.1,00,000/- per acre RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 4- Village: Patti Magdum Chahi Rs.2,15,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin: Rs.1,50,000/- per acre Village: Patti Taraf InsarChahi Rs.2,00,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin: Rs.1,50,000/- per acre Aggrieved against the award of the Collector, the claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, alleging inter-alia that the compensation awarded is absolutely insufficient and inadequate because the acquired land is situated within the Municipal Limits of Panipat on the main G.T.Road (National Highway) and is just one kilometer away from the main Bus Stand,Civil Hospital, Rest House Panipat and the Petrol Pump. It was also claimed that all around the land of the claimants, large number of industries and residential buildings have come up which has given immense potentiality to the acquired land which can be immediately put to use for the residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The respondents/State filed the reply and contested the claim set up by the landowners. It was, inter-alia, alleged that the compensation awarded by the Collector is adequate being based upon the prevailing market rate available at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The land-owners also filed replication. In order to prove their cases, the landowners examined PW-1 Jagir Singh (claimant); PW-2 Raj Pal Singh (Draftsman), PW-3 Ramesh Chand, Clerk of the office of Tehsildar Sales, Karnal and closed their evidence by tendering documents Ex.P-2 to P-18 and documents mark-A to C. As against this, the respondent-State also tendered into evidence documents Ex. R-1 to R-8 but did not lead any oral evidence. RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 5- The learned Reference Court did not take into account the sale deeds tendered by the claimants on the ground that the sale deeds Exs. P-3 to P-10, giving value of the acquired land, sold in the year 1988,@ Rs.128/- to Rs.133/- per square yard was pertaining to small pieces of land sold in the form of plot and there is nothing to show that these small pieces of land are identical in location and use etc. as compared to subject matter of the reference. The sale deeds produced by the respondent-State were also ignored on the ground that even the Collector himself has not taken them into consideration at the time of assessing the compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acres. Thus, the learned Reference Court relied upon an award of the reference Court (Ex. P-18) decided by Mr.K.C.Gupta, the then Addl. District Judge, Panipat in LAC Case No 23 of 1992 decided on 02.1.1995 in the case of Ram Chand and others v. State of Haryana vide which the market value of the land, subject matter of the present acquisition, was assessed @ Rs.81/- per square yard. Both the claimants and the State of Haryana are aggrieved against this judgment of the learned Reference Court and have come up in these appeals before this Court in which the claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation, whereas the State of Haryana has prayed for reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has vehemently contended that earlier, vide notification dated 23.2.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Act, 203.03 acres of land of village Patti Insar and Patti Mudgum Jadgan, District Panipat, was acquired for development and utilization of land as residential and RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 6- commercial area for Sectors 13 and 17, which was followed by a notification of declaration dated 22.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector classified the land into two categories as per its nature and awarded compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land. The claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act in the said case. The market value of the acquired land was assessed @ Rs.81/- per square yard in the case of Nand Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana. The claimants in the case of Nand Lal and others filed RFA No.1379 of 1994. In the said RFA keeping in view the base price of Rs.80/-per square yard for the acquisition of December, 1982, determined in the case of Jogi Ram and others Vs.State of Haryana and another 1997 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 377 six year's increase was given @ 12% per year for the acquisition which took place in the year 1989. Consequently, an amount of Rs 125/-per square yard was awarded. Nand Lal's Case (Supra) is reported as 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 303. Learned counsel for the claimants further submitted that the landowners in the case of Nand Lal (supra) went up to the Supreme court for further enhancement but the Supreme Court allowed them to seek a review before the High Court, as a result of which, Review Application bearing No.31-CI of 2007 in RFA No.1379 of 1994 in LAC No. 137 of 1992 titled as Nand Lal and others v. State of Haryana and another was filed which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated August 31,2007 and the compensation was redetermined @ Rs.139/- per square yard. It is also stated at the bar by Mr.Talwar that in the case of Nand Lal (supra), some of the landowners have even withdrawn the enhanced compensation. Besides this, learned counsel for the appellants RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 7- has also referred to an acquisition in respect of the land acquired for Sector 18, and relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bahadur Chand (died) v. State of Haryana and another (RFA No.2600 of 2001) decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 29.11.2006, wherein the market value of the acquired land has been determined @ Rs.185.60 per square yard. It is also contended that in the said case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 02.3.1993, vide which land in village Mauja Maqdum Jadgan, Mauja Patti Taraf Insar, Sarai Bachhra, Azizullapur and Nizampur was acquired for the development and establishment of Sector 18, which was followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 1.3.1994. The Collector, vide his award dated 28.2.1996, assessed the market value of the acquired land of village Mauja Maqdum Jadgan @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre; village Mauja Patti Taraf Insar @ Rs.4,50,000/-; Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre; village Sarai Bachhra @ Rs.3,50,000/- per acre ; village Azizullapur @ Rs.1,20,000/- per acre and that of village Nizampur @ Rs.3,00,000/- per acre The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the said case, this Court again relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Jogi Ram v. State of Haryana 1997 (2) P.L.R. 303, wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 15.12.1982 for Sectors,11,12, and 25 Part II in which the Collector had awarded Rs.59,200/- per acre towards compensation. In the said case, Division Bench of this Court had assessed the market value @ Rs. 80/- per square yards as on 15.12.1982. Thus, in the case of Bahadur Chand (Supra), wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 02.3.1993, this Court gave an increase of 12% per year and awarded RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 8- compensation @ Rs.185.60 per square yard. Learned counsel further submitted that in Bahadur Chand's Case (Supra), a Review Application No. 84-CI of 2007 in RFA No. 2600 of 2001 in LAC No.13 of 1997, was filed which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5.8.2008 and compensation has been assessed @ Rs. 206/- per square yard. It is also submitted that decision in the case of Jogi Ram (Supra) which has attained finality has been relied upon by the learned Reference Court as well as this Court for the purpose of assessing the compensation for the acquisition of land for development of Sectors 11,12, and 25 Part -II and 18 as well as in the present case for development of Sectors 6,7 and 8. Learned counsel also referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Gulab Singh v. State of Haryana and another (RFA No.19 of 1995 in LAC No. 256 of 1991) decided on 24.7.2008, wherein Section 4 notification was issued on 23.10.1989, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 22.10.1990 for the acquisition of land of village Sarain Pilkhan, District Panipat for development and utilization of land as industrial, commercial and transport area in Sector 25, Part -II, Panipat. The total land acquired by the State was 197.92 acres. The Court in that case as well relied upon a decision in the case of Jogi Ram (Supra) and granted compensation @ Rs. 147/-per square yard. Learned counsel also submitted that vide judgment rendered on 29.11.1996 in Jogi Ram's Case (Supra), the rate in the area of Panipat within the Municipal Limits has been accepted @ Rs.80/-per square yard as a base for the year 1982 and, thereafter, escalation of 12% has been given as increase for the acquisition which took place thereafter for Sectors 13 and 17 in the case of Nand Lal, Sector 18 in the case of Bahadur Chand and for Sector RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 9- 25 Part -II in the case of Gulab Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that in the similar circumstances, the present acquisition is with regard to the land falling within the Municipal Limits of Panipat for development of Sectors 6,7 and 8 , but the compensation of Rs.81/- per square yard assessed by the learned Reference Court is erroneous because after relying upon the decisions in the cases of Nand Lal (Supra), Bahadur Chand (Supra) and Gulab Singh (Supra),the compensation should have been at least Rs.139/-per square yard. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the land in question is situated within the Municipal Limits abutting the National Highway and is within the industrial area of Panipat, therefore, keeping in view the potentiality of land which can be converted for any use for residential, commercial and other purposes, the compensation assessed by the learned Reference Court is highly inadequate. Mr.H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, while opposing the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants and pursuing their own appeals, has vehemently contended that the previous awards may be in the cases of Nand Ram, Bahadur Chand and Gulab Singh, are irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the compensation in the present cases. He has further submitted that as per the site plan Ex. P-1, the acquired land is shown in green colour in which the sale instances which have been tendered by the claimants are shown in purple colour with letters mark A to K. It is also contended that insofar as sale deed mark A is concerned, that pertains to the land of one of the claimants namely, Kasturi Lal, which forms part of the acquired land where the sale took place on RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 10- 29.4.1989 and notification in the present case under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 10.5.1989. It is also submitted that once the sale deed is available from the acquired land itself, the claimants cannot be allowed to rely upon the previous award of other land which may be lying in close proximity to the acquired land. It is further submitted that if the sale deed denoted by letter in the site plan Ex.P-1 is taken into consideration which is of a small piece of land vis-a-vis the total acquired land measuring 372.26 acres, a suitable cut of 1/3rd should be applied and with that, the compensation would be arrived at @ Rs.88/- per square yard. Learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases reported as V.Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R.Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642 and Union of India and others v. Mangatu Ram and others (1997) 6, Supreme Court Cases 59 to contend that value of the land on the main road is more than the value of the land which is in the interior. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended that 12% increase which has been sought by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be granted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehtab Singh and others v. State of Haryana (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 64, wherein it has been held that it is not statutory to grant 12% increase per year. Learned counsel further submitted that in case of Sectors 13 and 17, the land is located within the fully developed residential area whereas the land acquired in the present case for Sectors 6,7 and 8 is an agricultural land, therefore, it is not comparable and for RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 11- that purpose, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Nand Lal (Supra) is totally irrelevant. In rebuttal, Mr.Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent has not led any oral evidence except for tendering the sale deeds Exs. R-1 to R-8, which have already been ignored by the learned Reference Court on the ground that the value arising out of those sale deeds are less than the award of the Collector. It is also submitted that if the land falling in Sectors 13 and 17 falls within the residential area, then the land which is the subject matter of Sector 18 is far away from the National Highway and does not fall within the residential area for which the compensation has already been awarded @ Rs.206/- per square yard. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions raised by both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. In the present acquisition, land of five villages namely, Kabri, Faridpur, Sarai Bachhra, Patti Magdum Jadgan and Patti Taras Insar has been acquired for the development of Sectors 6,7 and 8 at Panipat. The learned reference Court has relied upon the previous award of the reference Court Ex.P-18 decided by Sh.K.C.Gupta, Addl.District Judge, Panipat in L.A.Case No. 23 of 1992 (Ram Chand etc v. State of Haryana) vide which market value of the acquired was held to be Rs.81/- per square yard while relying upon the award of another reference Court in LAC Case No.137 of 1992 titled as Nand Lal and others vs. State of Haryana rendered by Mr.M.S. Sullar, Addl.District Judge,Panipat on 23.2.1994 in which the market value of the acquired land of village Patti RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 12- Taraf Insar and Patti Magdum Jadgan, acquired on 23.2.1989 for developing Sectors 13 and 17 at Panipat was determined @ 81 per square yard after considering the evidence and relying upon the authority in the case of Hukam Chand and another Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1989 Punjab and Haryana 27. It was also found that the land acquired for Sector 17 is just in front of Sectors 6,7, and 8 across G.T.Road and was acquired only 2- ½ months prior to the present acquisition. The said case of Nand Lal i.e. LAC No. 137 of 1992 became subject matter of appeal before this Court in RFA No. 1379 of 1994 in which the claimants have relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jogi Ram and another v. State of Haryana (1997 (2) P.L.R. 303) for the reasons that in Jogi Ram's Case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 15.12.1982 and in the case of Nand Lal, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.2.1989,whereas in the case of Jogi Ram, compensation has been assessed @ Rs.80 per square yard while relying upon the decision in the case of Hukam Chand (Supra). Thus, in RFA No.1379 of 1994, Nand Lal etc, learned Single Judge of this Court while relying upon decision in Jogi Ram's Case (Supra) where the compensation was awarded Rs.80/- per square yard for the acquisition of December 1982, granted an increase of 12% per year for six years and determined the compensation Rs.125/- per square yard. Further, the claimants filed a Review application No. 31-CI of 2007 in RFA No. 1379 of 1994 in LAC No.137 of 1992 Nand Lal etc v. State of Haryana for correction of arithmetical error, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.8.2007 and compensation of Rs.125/- per square yard was determined as Rs.139/ per square yard after correcting error of RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 13- calculation. Similarly, in the case of Bahadur Chand (Supra) land of village Patti Magdum Jadgan, Patti Taras Insar and Sarai Bachhra was acquired alongwith land of village Azizulapur and Nizampur vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 2.3.1993 for development of Sector 18 at Panipat. In this case also, the reference Court had relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jogi Ram (Supra) and granted an increase of 12% on Rs.80/- per square yard from 15.12.1982 to 2.3.1993 and the compensation @ Rs.185.60/- per square yard was assessed. RFA No. 2600 of 2001 in LAC No.13 of 1997 in the case of Bahadur Chand (Supra) was dismissed and the award of the reference Court @ Rs.185.60/- per square yard was thus maintained. A review application No.84-CI of 2007 was filed in RFA No.2600 of 2001 in LAC No.13 of 1997 (Bahadur Chand (Supra) which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the compensation was further enhanced to the tune of Rs. 206/- per square yard. Therefore, land of village Patti Taraf Insar, Patti Magdum Jadgan and Sarai Bachhra had already been under acquisition for which the compensation has already been determined by this Court in the cases of Nand Lal (Supra) and Bahadur Chand (Supra) which have already attained finality. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer,Kheda and Anr. Vs. Vasudev Chandrashankar and Anr, All India Land Acquisition & Compensation Cases 1998 (1)LACC 234 that for determining the market value of the land, award pertaining to the acquired land of the same village is the best evidence. The compensation in LA.C.Case No.137 of 1992 Nand Lal and others. State of Haryana and another (Supra), for the acquisition dated 23.2.1989 has been assessed by RFA No.2213 of 1995 - 14- the reference Court @ Rs.81 per square yard which has been followed by Sh.K.C.Gupta, Addl.District Judge, Panipat, while deciding L.A.C.Case No.23 of 1992 (Ram Chand and others. Vs. State of Haryana (Supra) and the said case of Ram Chand and others vs. State of Haryana. has been followed by the Court below in the present case for the purpose of determining the compensation @ Rs.81/- per square yard. Now the compensation has been further enhanced in L.A.C Case No.137 of 1992 Nand Lal etc. State of Haryana (Suptra) who had filed RFA No.1379 of 1994 in which the learned Single Judge of this Court while relying upon the compensation in the case of Jogi Ram and another vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) P.L.R. 303 assessed the compensation @ Rs.125/- per square yard which has been further determined @ Rs.139/- per square yard in the review application No.31-C of 2007. Insofar the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned for the purpose of contesting the claims of the appellants/claimants and for the purpose of reducing the compensation already awarded on the ground that the previous award should not be considered as sale deed of Kasturi Lal is available on record in which the land was sold @ Rs. 132.73 per square yard as on 29.4.1988, in my opinion, in any case, the compensation to Kasturi Lal cannot be awarded less than Rs. 132.73 per square yard and since the acquisition in the present case took place on 10.5.1989, the compensation