1 R.F.A. No. 1713 of 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Misc. No. 1850/C.I of 2009 & Regular First Appeal No. 1713 of 2005 Date of Decision: 16.9.2009 Gopi Chand --- Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This first appeal has been filed by the land-owner for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of his land acquired by the Government of Haryana. The Government of Haryana acquired land measuring 193.16 acres though in the notification dated 5.5.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) the land mentioned was 193.16 acres whereas in the notification under Section 6 of the Act, it was mentioned as 194.52 acres. The acquired land was situated within the revenue estate of village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, and had been acquired for the purpose of development and utilization thereof for residential –cum-commercial institutional area for Sector 52, 2 R.F.A. No. 1713 of 2005 Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon assessed compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; Rs. 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabarani; Rs. 8,40,000/- per acre for Bhood and Rs. 7,20,000/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin land, with other statutory benefits, vide award dated 3.5.2000. The landowner did not feel satisfied and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, by award dated 19.2.2005, determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 361/- per square yard, irrespective of the nature of the land, besides granting statutory benefits available under the Act. Still not satisfied, he has filed the instant appeal seeking further enhancement of the amount of compensation. The claimant, during the pendency of this appeal, moved Civil Misc. application No. 1850/C.1 of 2005 with a prayer that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 26.4.2006, passed in the appeal filed by other landowners, i.e. R.F.A. No. 2263 of 2004, titled as Mahipal and others Versus The State of Haryana and others. At the commencement of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that against the same award relating to the same notifications, this Court by a detailed order passed in the aforesaid appeal has remanded the matter to the Reference Court for re-determination of market value of the acquired land. Explaining the situation under which the said matter came to be remanded, the counsel submitted that earlier the question of determination of market value of the similar land acquired by the same notification happened to be considered by this Court in RFA No.2263 of 2004 in respect of village Samaspur wherein it was noticed that the assessment of compensation and determination of the market value had been made by the Reference Court only on the basis of a judgment 3 R.F.A. No. 1713 of 2005 of the apex Court in Bhim Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and another (Civil Appeal No. 8609-8613 of 2001 decided on 24.9.2003) and no reliance, whatsoever, had been placed on various sale instances relied upon by the claimants. The counsel further submitted that it was also observed in the order passed in RFA No. 2263 of 2004, that the Reference Court had also ignored the oral evidence produced by the landowners. According to the learned counsel, the Reference Court had made assessment with regard to village Wazirabad, Kanhai and Bindapur on the basis of assessment in Mahipal’s case, and cases relating to those villages had also been remanded to the Reference Court for fresh determination. On the strength of these submissions, the counsel further urged that the matter herein as well, deserves to be remanded to the Reference Court with the same directions as given in the above appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the State did not dispute the position stated by the counsel appearing for the appellant; rather endorsed the submission made by him. A perusal of the order dated 26.4.2006 passed in RFA No. 2263 of 2004, goes to show that in the aforesaid appeal, the Reference Court had decided the cases by only relying upon judgment in Bhim Singh’s case (supra) which related to acquisition of the year 24.4.1990 but without considering the other documentary evidence including sale instances, Exhibits P1 to P7 which were relating to the year 1996-1997, i.e. much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case. Since the counsel appearing for the parties are ad idem that the matter deserves to be reconsidered by the Reference Court and the circumstances also so warrant, the appeal is disposed of remitting the matter to the Reference Court for re-determination of the market value of the acquired land in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence 4 R.F.A. No. 1713 of 2005 led by the parties including the sale instances available on the record and relevant for the purpose in terms of the order dated 26.2.2006 passed in RFA No. 2263 of 2004. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Gurgaon, on 20.10.2009 who may keep the matter on his own file or may entrust the same to any other court of competent jurisdiction for disposal. The Reference Court will ensure that the matter is disposed of at the earliest and not later than four months of the appearance of the parties before him as the land involved herein had been acquired more than 12 years back. Civil Misc. application also stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) September 16, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*