R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 (O&M) L.A. Case No. 666 of 1998 Date of decision: October 15, 2010 Naut Ram and others .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Argued by: Mr. Shailender Jain, Mr. C. B. Goel, Mr. R.A. Yadav, Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Mr. Vijay Saini for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Manav Bajaj for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Narender Sura, Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for HUDA on 8.10.2010. Mr. K.S. Sandhu for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for HUDA on 11.10.2010. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocates for HUDA. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 171, 292 of 1997; 2217 and 2637 of 2000; 4685 of 2001; 1971, 2107, 2571, 2690, 2693, 2701 to 2707, 2709, 2710, 2850 to 2854, 2926, 2940, 2941, 3142, 3397, 3398, 3472, 3568, 4004, 4028 to 4030 of 2002; 2805, 2806, 2899 of 2003; 722 to 728, 884 and 885 of 2004, 4449 and 4450 of 2006; 3571 and 3572 of 2008 and 681 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The land acquired in the present set of appeals pertains to three different acquisitions, namely, vide two different notifications dated 17.4.1989 and third one dated 18.12.1991. Facts pertaining to acquisition dated 17.4.1989 3. In R.F.A. Nos. 2217 and 2637 of 2000 and 4685 of 2001, pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Ghatta, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [2] and District Gurgaon, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. 4.. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.4.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 833.18 acres, situated in villages Ghatta, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired by the State of Haryana for residential/industrial area (Sector 49-50 (Part) Old and Sectors 55-56 (Part New) at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 16.4.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: “Village Ghatta 1. For Gair Mumkin Nala and Johar: ` 50,000/- per acre 2. For other land ` 75,000/- per acre Village Wazirabad 1. For Gair Mumkin Nala and Johar: ` 1,00,000/- per acre 2. For other land ` 1,25,000/- per acre Village Haiderpur Viran 1. For Gair Mumkin Nala and Johar: ` 75,000/- per acre 2. For other land ` 1,00,000/- per acre” Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 106.99 per square yard. Facts pertaining to another acquisition dated 17.4.1989 5.. In R.F.A. Nos. 171, 292 of 1997, 722 to 728, 884 and 885 of 2004, 4449 and 4450 of 2006, pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof. 6. Vide another notification dated 17.4.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 40.85 acres, situated within the revenue estate of villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for residential/commercial area in Sector 29 (Part) at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 16.4.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [3] the market value of the acquired land @ ` 7,53,000/- per acre. Facts pertaining to acquisition dated 18.12.1991 7. In R.F.A. Nos. 1971, 2107, 2571, 2690, 2693, 2701 to 2707, 2709, 2710, 2850 to 2854, 2926, 2940, 2941, 3142, 3397, 3398, 3472, 3568, 4004, 4028 to 4030 of 2002, 2805, 2806, 2899 of 2003; 3571 and 3572 of 2008 and 681 of 2009, pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. 8. Vide another notification dated 18.12.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 53.05 acres, situated within the revenue estate of villages Chakkarpur,Wazirabad and Haiderpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for developmentand utilization of the land as sector road at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 27.11.1992 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land as under: “Village Chakkarpur Chahi ` 3,60,000/- per acre Alla Barani/Magda ` 3,60,000/- per acre Bhood ` 1,35,000/- per acre Banjar ` 90,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin ` 3,60,000/- per acre Village Wazirabad Chahi ` 3,60,000/- per acre Alla Barani/Magda ` 2,25,000/- per acre Bhood ` 1,35,000/- per acre Banjar ` 90,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin ` 3,15,000/- per acre Village Haiderpur Viran Chahi ` 3,60,000/- per acre Alla Barani/Magda ` 2,25,000/- per acre Bhood ` 1,35,000/- per acre Banjar ` 90,000/- per acre Gair Mumkin ` 2,70,000/- per acre” Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 141.22 per square yard. R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [4] 9. Before I proceed to deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to trace out a brief history of the case as to what transpired before the arguments in the set of appeals were finally heard. When the cases came up for hearing on 21.7.2010, considering the fact that learned counsel for the land owners relied upon an order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2160-2243 of 2005 –Vishnu Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.3.2010, this court passed the following order: “The issue under consideration in the bunch of appeals is regarding valuation of the land acquired vide notification dated December 18, 1991, situated in villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur, in district Gurgaon. While assessing the compensation, the learned court below relied upon earlier judgment of this court pertaining to land of village Wazirabad acquired vide notification dated April 17, 1989 and granted increase @ 12% per annum for the period of 32 months. The compensation as assessed by this court for acquisition of land vide notification dated April 17, 1989, ` 106.99 per square yard, i.e., ` 5,17,831.60 per acre in that case. The reference court had assessed the compensation @ ` 9,15,000/- per acre which was reduced by this court to ` 5,17,831.60. The landowners in the aforesaid case filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court dated May 13, 1999 reducing the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the land owners at the time of arguments submitted that the matter in dispute was settled between the land owners and the State before the Supreme Court and the compensation for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated April 17, 1989 was enhanced to ` 8,23,500/- per acre. The submission is that once the amount of compensation has been further enhanced from ` 5,17,831.60 per acre to ` 8,23,500/- per acre, i.e., 170/- per square yard, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners in the present set of appeals also deserves to be enhanced by taking base at 170/- per square yard, as against ` 106.99 per square yard taken by the learned court below. The matter was taken up for hearing before vacations and learned counsel appearing for the State sought time to have instructions in the matter. It was again taken up for hearing on 19.7.2010 and adjournment was sought for the same purpose. The matter was R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [5] adjourned for today. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Mr. Vikas Yadav, Additional Director, Urban Estates, Panchkula, who is present in court, submitted that there were no instructions given to the counsel appearing for the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court to settle the dispute and get the amount of compensation enhanced from ` 5,17,831.60 per acre to ` 8,23,500/- per acre. In fact, the issue regarding compensation for acquisition carried out vide notification dated April 17,1989 was settled before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 31.3.2010. However, till date, definite stand of the State is not available as to whether the settlement arrived at before Hon'ble the Supreme Court regarding valuation of land pertaining to acquisition dated April 17, 1989 is to be considered as a precedent for assessing the compensation of acquisition carried out subsequently. Learned counsel for the State seeks short adjournment so that learned Advocate General could address the court on the important issue.” 10. On 27.7.2010, the following order was passed: “On the issues noticed by this court vide order dated 21.7.2010, learned Advocate General, Haryana, referred to para 7 of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 31.3.2010 noticing the settlement arrived at between the State and the land owners in the case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court where as a special case the State decided to settle the matter by agreeing for award of compensation at the rate fixed by the Reference Court less 10%. However, it was submitted by the State therein that the same should not be treated as a precedent for other cases and the consent should not be treated as an admission as the amount determined by this court was quite low. The principle adopted was to be explained by stating that the total of about ` 150 crores was to be recovered by the State on account of excess paid compensation which included the principal amount and statutory benefits plus interest. However, the State could recover only ` 15 crores from them because of agitation by the farmers. As a special case in principle it was decided that only 10% of the amount having been recovered, the balance shall be treated as R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [6] the amount of compensation payable to the land owners. As is evident from the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the issue under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was regarding acquisition of land pertaining to villages Sukhrali and Silokhra, District Gurgaon, vide notification dated 27.8.1987 for development as Sector 29, Gurgaon and the second acquisition was pertaining to land of villages Ghata and Wazirabad acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1989 for development as Sectors 55 and 56, Gurgaon. As the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was reduced by this court and before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the State settled the matter in Lok Adalat by agreeing to pay a higher amount, the issue as to whether the amount which has been paid beyond the judicial pronouncement by this court in a settlement before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a Lok Adalat is to be borne by the State-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, `HUDA') for whose benefits the land was acquired or the burden thereof has already been passed on the plot holders, the stand of the State or the HUDA shall be required. At this stage, learned counsel for the land owners pointed out that in fact the HUDA had already recovered the amount of enhanced compensation calculating the same at the rate of ` 9,15,000/- per acre which was ultimately reduced by this court to ` 5,17,831.60 paise. As the area after acquisition was transferred to HUDA, which was developed and the plots were sold by it, let notice be issued to HUDA as well so that the status regarding the aforesaid factual position is placed before this court.” 11. The order passed by this court on 30.8.2010 is also extracted below: “In response to the order passed by this court on 27.7.2010, affidavit of R. P. Gupta, Administrator (HQ), HUDA Sector 6, Panchkula has been filed. It has been stated therein that the entire amount either awarded by this court or by Hon'ble the Supreme Court along with interest accrued thereon is chargeable by HUDA from the plot holders whether the court awarded the same on merits or by way of settlement. Reference was also made to Regulation 2(b) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [7] Regulations, 1978, which provides as under: “Additional Price and Additional Premium means such sum of money as may be determined by the Chief Administrator in respect of the sale or lease of land or building by allotment, which may become payable by the transferee or lessee with respect to land or building sold or leased to him in a sector on account of the enhancement of compensation of any land or building in the same sector by the court on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the amount of cost incurred in respect of such reference.” The submission was that in terms of the aforesaid regulation, the HUDA is entitled to claim amount of compensation for any land or building as enhanced by the court. Learned counsel appearing for HUDA seeks time to address arguments as to whether settlement arrived at before Hon'ble the Supreme Court where the State itself volunteered to pay higher amount of compensation to the land owners instead of a lesser amount determined by this court, can be said to be the determination of amount of compensation by the court thereby entitling HUDA to recover the same from the plot holders.” 12. The arguments in the set of appeals were partly heard on 8.10.2010 and were concluded on 11.10.2010. 13. On the issue, as are evident from the aforesaid interim orders passed by this court on various dates, Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, `HUDA') made his submissions. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned here that the issues raised were as to whether the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) can be considered as a precedent to be relied upon for determination of compensation for the land which was acquired subsequently and secondly, as to whether the amount agreed to be paid by the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court can be said to be determination by the court, thereby entitling HUDA to pass on the burden thereof on the allottees of the plots. 14. Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for HUDA, while referring to various provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, `the HUDA Act') and Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations,1978 (for short, `the Regulations') and also R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [8] various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, `the 1987 Act') submitted that an award even if made by the Lok Adalat is executable as a decree of the civil suit and once it is a decree, HUDA is certainly entitled to pass on the burden of compensation so determined in those proceedings to the allottees of the plots in the area. He further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) to submit that no doubt, the amount therein had been determined in a Lok Adalat conducted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, however, the final award was not of the Lok Adalat, but the appeals were finally decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and the appeals filed by the land owners were partly accepted while increasing the amount of compensation. Meaning thereby it was the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. What happened in the background as regards the manner of determination of compensation, whether it was by way of adjudicatory process or non-adjudicatory process, would not be relevant. 15. As far as the issue, whether the judgment in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) can be relied upon as a precedent, the submission was that the same should not be relied upon for the reason that the process for determination of compensation in that case was non-adjudicatory. It is only the judgments, which are delivered after following the adjudicatory process, which can be relied upon or referred to as a binding precedent. However, no judgment in support of the argument was cited. He was candid in saying that still as the matters had been decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it can certainly be an input for judicial process in future. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, appearing for the land owners in some of the appeals and also assisting the court on the issues raised, submitted that the judgment in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) should be relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation for the acquisition carried out in the same area, as it is not an award passed by the Lok Adalat in Hon'ble the Supreme Court, rather it is a final judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court determining a particular amount of compensation. As to what happened in the background thereof would not be relevant. The State as a fair litigant can always concede and settle the disputes with its subjects. Even in land acquisition cases also, it can very well submit before the court that they are agreeable to pay a particular amount of compensation for the acquired land, which is to the satisfaction of the land owners. Lok Adalat is also one of the mode of alternative dispute resolution, which is part of the judicial process. There is nothing on record to doubt the bonafides of the persons, who settled the matter before Hon'ble the Supreme Court agreeing to pay R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [9] a certain amount of compensation for the acquired land, which may be more than the compensation determined by this court. 17. He further submitted that in case the matters are settled only in the Lok Adalat and an award is passed, though it may be executable as a decree, but the determination being not by a court, in terms of the existing provisions of the HUDA Act and the Regulations, HUDA may not be entitled to pass on the burden of enhanced compensation so determined on the allottees. There can be a settlement regarding the amount of compensation even in courts. Any judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is a binding precedent. In the present case, reliance is sought to be placed upon by the land owners in the subsequent acquisition only on a question of fact regarding the amount of compensation determined for the acquired land. It is not a concession by the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on a question of law, which may or may not be a precedent. However, to state that a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not a binding precedent in a case where the amount of compensation has been determined would be totally mis- conceived. 18. The value of land is determined on the principle as to what a willing buyer is ready to pay to a willing settler. The State was the buyer, though it was through the process of acquisition of land and the land owners were the sellers of land. The State as a buyer agreed to pay a particular amount of compensation to the satisfaction of the land owners. The other land owners in the area should be denied compensation, which is similar in line. They are also entitled to pray for further enhancement of compensation for the land acquired subsequently. It would be too anomalous to state that for the acquisition carried out in the earlier years in the same area, the land owners would be entitled to higher compensation, whereas for the land acquired subsequently in the same area, the land owners should be paid lesser compensation. If the argument of learned counsel appearing for HUDA regarding not relying the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as a precedent is considered, the same would create an anomalous position. He further submitted that it was merely a half-hearted attempt by learned counsel for the State appearing before Hon'ble the Supreme Court when it was stated that the amount of compensation conceded to be paid by them to the land owners in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) should not be treated as a precedent, Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not accept that plea as there was no such direction by Hon'ble the Supreme Court not to treat the same as a precedent. All what the operative part of the judgment says is that the amount of compensation is determined at the rate conceded by the State. R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [10] Arguments on merits 19. Regarding acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989 pertaining to villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra acquiring 40.85 acres of land for development as Sector 29 (Part), Gurgaon is concerned, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court determined the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 27.8.1987 pertaining to land of villages Sukhrali and Silokhra. In the present acquisition also, the land pertaining to both the aforesaid villages and in addition to that, the adjoining land of village Sirhaul was also acquired. Once Hon'ble the Supreme Court had determined the value therein at ` 8,23,500/- per acre, the land owners should be awarded increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications, which is one year and eight months and the compensation should be assessed @ ` 9,88,100/- per acre. He further submitted that the amount of compensation determined in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) was itself relied upon in a subsequent judgment by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1910 of 2005 –Kaptan Singh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 19.8.2010, pertaining to acquisition of land of village Jharsa, District Gurgaon vide notification dated 27.8.1987. Even the learned court below while determining the amount of compensation for the land in question had relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1071 of 1997 –State of Haryana v. Jyoti Parkash and others, decided on 5.8.1999. In that case, the judgment of this court for the acquisition of land, which was subject-matter of dispute before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) was relied upon and the compensation was determined accordingly. The State, in fact, being not in appeal had not disputed reliance on the aforesaid judgment for the assessment of value of the land, in principle. 20. As far as acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989 is concerned, it was submitted that these are a few left out cases of land, the valuation of which was under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra). The land owners therein are entitled to the same amount of compensation, as has been determined in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra). 21. As far as acquisition of land pertaining to villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur vide notification dated 18.12.1991 is concerned, the submission was that even in those cases, the learned court below had relied upon the earlier judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 991 of 1996 –Indraj and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.5.1999, pertaining to acquisition of land