R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: September 5, 2009 1. R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 Rajinder Singh through LRs and others …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 2. R.F.A. No. 595 of 2000 Smt. Chandro …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 3. R.F.A. No. 596 of 2000 Mehar Singh and others …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [2] 4. R.F.A. No. 597 of 2000 Ram Kumar …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 5. R.F.A. No. 598 of 2000 Sawrup Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 6. R.F.A. No. 599 of 2000 Smt. Prem Lata and others …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 7. R.F.A. No. 600 of 2000 Puran Singh and others …..Appellants R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [3] Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 8. R.F.A. No. 601 of 2000 Anup Singh …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 9. R.F.A. No. 602 of 2000 Sis Ram …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 10. R.F.A. No. 603 of 2000 Daya Ram and another …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 11. R.F.A. No. 604 of 2000 Umed R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [4] …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 12. R.F.A. No. 605 of 2000 Daya Ram …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 13. R.F.A. No. 726 of 2000 Sish Ram …..Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents 14. R.F.A. No. 727 of 2000 Sish Ram and others …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [5] 15. R.F.A. No. 1103 of 2000 Puran Anand Parkash and others …..Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Saurabh Khatri, Advocate for Mr.S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.H.S. Hooda, Advocate General Haryana with Mr.S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. for the respondents. . -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of RFA Nos.594, 595, 596, 597, 598, 599, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 726, 727 and 1103 of 2000 against the order dated December 4, 1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat dismissing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since common question of law and facts is involved in all the appeals and all the cases arise in context to the same notification under Section 4 of the Act dated May 11, 1992 published in Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary), notifying that the land measuring 28.26 acres was required by the State at pubic expense R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [6] for public purpose i.e. for the development and utilization of land as construction of water works at Sonepat, under Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 for the Haryana Urban Development Authority in Village Garhi Brahmanan Hadbast No.203, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Subsequently vide notification dated May 5, 1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act, the Government declared that the lands acquired were needed for the aforesaid public purpose. The award was announced on May 4, 2005 at the rate of Rs.3 lacs per acre alongwith all other statutory benefits under the Act. Reference was made in 21 cases under Section 18 of the Act. Vide impugned order dated December 4,1999, all the references were dismissed. The Additional District Judge, Sonepat, had taken up all the 21 references under Section 18 of the Act. The evidence was recorded in the main case i.e. Rajinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and another. The facts in the present case have been taken up from RFA No.594 of 2000- Rajinder Singh now represented through LRs and others Vs. State of Haryana and another and it is proposed to dispose of all the 15 appeals by considering the RFA of Rajinder Singh as main appeal. The claim of the land owners before the Reference Court was that the Collector had awarded compensation at a lower rate. Their lands were situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat and that the land acquired is fit for residential, commercial and industrial purpose and is adjacent to metalled road. The land was quite near to the abadi of Village Garhi Brahmnan. A well developed colony was already in existence in front of the land of the appellants. It was claimed that some land adjacent to the R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [7] land of the appellants comprised in same khasra had been sold at the rate of Rs.6 lacs per acre about three years ago. The land of Village Jamalpura Kalan, which was outside the limits of Sonepat municipality was acquired by the respondents at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. yards for the same purpose. The land is surrendered by various factories and also residential and commercial establishments. A sum of Rs.3 lacs per acre has been assessed ignoring the high potential of the land of the appellants. Claimants claimed that market value of the land acquired should be determined at the rate of Rs.1500/- per square yards. On the other hand, State counsel claimed that the Collector vide award No.4 dated May 4, 1995 had taken into consideration all the relevant factors i.e. the Collector rate, situation of the acquired land and future potential etc. and there was no justification for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The reference Court framed the following issues:- “1. What was the market value of the acquired lands at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP. 2. Relief.” The claimants examined the following witnesses:- 1. PW1-Anup Singh to prove the sale instances pertaining to land measuring 2K-3M sold for consideration of Rs.1.60 lacs on April 29, 1992, as per sale deed Ex.P1. He stated that value of the land acquired by the State was approximately R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [8] Rs.500/- per sq. yard at the time of notification. He stated that his 8 acres of land acquired vide notification was about 500 mts. away from the District Courts building. 2. PW2 Ram Chander, former Naib Tehsildar to prove the site plan Ex.P2 and deposed that Mini Secretariat, District Jail, Hindu High School, B.Ed. College and Garhi Ghasita Colony were located in the revenue estate of Village Garhi Brahmnan within the radius of 1½ km. only. He tendered award Ex.P3 and Aks Sajra Ex.P4. 3. PW3- Sis Ram claimed that his land had also been acquired by the State and that his land was situated between Mehlana and Kakroi roads and that the said area was adjacent to the area of Sector 23, Sonepat. He had installed a tubewell by spending Rs.40000/-. He produced electricity bill Ex.P5. On behalf of the State, Parkash Chand Kanungo was produced as RW1. He proved the site plan Ex.R1 and testified that some other land had earlier been acquired by the State for Water Works but the land owners had preferred references under Section 18 of the Act which was decided by the Reference Court and a sum of Rs.49/- per sq. yard had been awarded to the land owners. He proved that the land had been acquired for the same purpose i.e. constructions of Water Works and that the piece of the land R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [9] acquired in this case is part of the land for which the land owners has been awarded Rs.49/- per sq. yards by the Court. Certified copies of the sale deed Exs.R-2 to R-10 were produced by him. He stated that the references pertaining to the land acquired for Sector 23 have been decided by the Reference Court and a sum of Rs.49/- per sq. yard stood awarded as the price of the land. Copy of the judgment passed by Sh.P.L. Goyal, the then Additional District Judge, Sonepat, pertaining to disposal of reference of Sector 23 was placed on record was Ex.R-11. Anoop Singh, Chand Ram and Rajinder Singh were produced to prove the sale deeds Ex.R3 showing that 17 marlas of land was sold for consideration of Rs.18000/- and that 17 marlas of land was sold for Rs.30000/- vide Ex.R-7 and 1000 sq. yards for Rs.1.20 lacs vide Ex.R5. Taking into consideration the sale deeds as well as the assessment of the market value pertaining to the land of Sector 23, Sonepat, which had been acquired by the State Government for development of Sector 23, Sonepat, wherein the value of the land acquired was assessed at the rate of Rs.49/- per sq. yard, the Additional District Judge, Sonepat held that the market value of the land was not more than Rs.3 lacs per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Mr.Saurabh Khatrai, counsel for the appellants has argued that the land acquired in the present case which is the subject matter of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated May 11, 1992 is adjacent to the land which was acquired for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 23, Sonepat, vide notification R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [10] dated November 16, 1988 under Section 4 of the Act. The said land also forms part of the revenue estate of Village Garhi Brahmanan, Hadbast No.203, Jamalpur Khurd, Hadbast No.204 and Kalupur Hadbast No.205, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The order of the Reference Court dated December 12, 1995, passed by Sh.P.L. Goyal, Additional District Judge, Sonepat, granting compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.49 per sq. yard has been taken into consideration. The Reference Court has dismissed the reference observing that the market value has been rightly assessed by the Collector and that the value of the acquired piece of land was certainly not more than Rs.3 lacs per acre. It is also a fact that the order of Sh.P.L.Goyal, Additional District Judge, Sonepat dated December 12, 1995 was challenged in RFA No. 662 of 1996-Prithi Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another. While allowing the appeal against the order of Sh.P.L.Goyal, Additional District Judge, Sonepat dated December 12, 1995, (Ex.P.11), the market value of the land of same village which was acquired for Sector 23, Sonepat, has been enhanced to Rs.77 per sq. yard. Certified copy of the judgment in Prithi Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana, RFA No.662 of 1996, has been made part of the record. In view of the fact that the market value of the land of same village which was acquired on November 16, 1988 vide notification under Section 4 of the Act has been enhanced from Rs.49 per sq. yards to Rs.77 per sq. yard, the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated May 11, 1992 also deserves to be enhanced, as judicial precedents can safely be adopted by Courts as yardsticks of having market price of the land R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [11] if the lands are acquired during the same time or similarly situated and are acquired for same purposes. In the present case, the decision in RFA No. 662 of 1996 which has been taken into consideration as annexure P-11 by the Reference Court to assess the market value of the land of same village, it will be prudent to rely upon the market value assessed of the land, which is also the subject matter of present appeal. As the market value of similarly situated land has been determined to be Rs.77/- per sq. yard in November 1988, taking into consideration the enhancement trend of the price of the land in the same locality, benefit can be given to the appellants for the gap between the period of earlier notification of November 16, 1988 and the notification dated May 11, 1992. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, AIR 2002 SC 1558, the appellants are entitled to an increase of at least 10% per acre for every year since their land was acquired on May 11, 1992. The appellants can be given benefit of 10% escalation p.a. for a period of 3½ years over and above the compensation that has been assessed at the rate of Rs.77/- per sq. yard for acquisition of November 1988. On calculation of 35% of Rs.77/- the market value of the land of the appellants is assessed to be Rs.104/- per sq. yard. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment of The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, JT 2008 (9) SC 480, wherein it was held that R.F.A. No. 594 of 2000 [12] the re-course can be taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood available. The said method has been held to be reasonably safe in determining the market value. In the present case, applying the said principle of annual increase in the market value at 10% per annum after the acquisition of 1988 in the areas of the neighbouring acquired land appears to be just and reasonable. In view of the above discussion, the present appeals are allowed and the compensation is enhanced and it is held that the market value of the land acquired was Rs.104/- per sq. yards. The appellants will be entitled to all statutory benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. September 5, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE